Appeal No. 2004-0744 Page 4
Application No. 09/671,188
Cardin et al. (Cardin) 5,104,645 Apr. 14, 1992
Coffindaffer et al. (Coffindaffer ‘666) 5,624,666 Apr. 29, 19971
Cardinali et al. (Cardinali), “Novel Cationic Compatible Rheology Modifiers for Hard-to-
Thicken Personal Care Applications,” Fragrance Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 151-159
(1999)
The Rejection
Claims 1 through 6, 8 through 10, 15 through 17, 20, and 22 through 42 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Cardin, Cardinali, and Coffindaffer ‘666.
Deliberations
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials: (1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal;
(2) applicants’ Appeal Brief (Paper No. 21) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 24);
(3) the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 22); (4) the above-cited prior art references; and
(5) the ELECTION OF SPECIES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §1.143 received August 16, 2001
(Paper No. 8).
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Discussion
1 In section (9) of the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 22), the examiner includes U.S. Patent
Number 5,648,323 issued July 15, 1997, to Coffindaffer et al., in the citation of prior art of record. That
citation, however, appears to constitute an inadvertent error. This can be seen from a review of the final
rejection (Paper No. 14) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 22), section (10), where the examiner
makes clear that Coffindaffer ‘666 is relied on to support the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007