Appeal No. 2003-1076
Application No. 09/779,873
Moreover, as repeatedly stated by the examiner and reiterated in our Decision, appellant’s
arguments are simply not directed to the invention as claimed. Appellant’s claims are simply not
limited to devices for applying cosmetic products or to applicators which contact the human
body. Thus, since appellant’s arguments focus on features which are simply not found in the
claims, they are unpersuasive and over coming to examiner’s prima facie showing of
obviousness.
Appellant’s request for rehearing further includes arguments that the secondary references
do not anticipate the claimed invention. As explained above, the claims have not been rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, we do not consider the arguments set forth on pages 11-
13 of appellant’s request for rehearing.
CONCLUSION
Appellant’s request for rehearing has been granted to the extent that our decision has been
reconsidered.
Appellant’s request that we reverse the decision of the examiner, finally rejecting claims
1-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Kellett,
Battice et al. and Gettings et al. and that we enter new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is denied.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007