Appeal No. 2004-0384 Page 6
Application No. 09/979,424
We note in passing that claim 1 does not expressly recite “about 20% or greater
of a volatile solvent, by weight of total composition” (emphasis added). However, giving
this claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d at 1548, 218 USPQ at 388, we conclude that “by weight of total
composition” is the only plausible interpretation which the facts permit. This is clear
from a review of the specification, page 9, lines 18 through 23.
Second, the examiner argues that Trinh ‘940 suggests a cosmetic composition
comprising about 20% or greater of low molecular weight monohydric alcohols (Paper
No. 15, page 6, paragraph 3). The argument lacks merit. Trinh ‘940 discloses and
claims an aqueous composition for reducing malodor impression “wherein said
composition contains less than 5%, by weight of the composition, of low molecular
weight monohydric alcohols” (Trinh ‘940, claim 1, emphasis added). On these facts,
Trinh ‘940 teaches away from, not toward, the claim limitation “about 20% or greater of
a volatile solvent.” Again, we disagree that Trinh ‘940 discloses or suggests the
cosmetic composition of claim 1, considered as a whole, including the limitation “about
20% or greater of a volatile solvent.” Nor has the examiner established that Trinh ‘937,
Lucas ‘341, or Lucas ‘342 cures the above-noted deficiency of Trinh ‘940.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007