Ex Parte Douin et al - Page 8


              Appeal No. 2004-2205                                                                Page 8                
              Application No. 09/766,403                                                                                

              skilled in the art generally expected thickeners for aqueous composition to be                            
              inapplicable to oil-in-water emulsions or oil-in-water nanoemulsions.  Thus, the evidence                 
              of record does not support Appellants’ argument that those skilled in the art would not                   
              have been motivated to combine Casperson with Cervantes because they would not                            
              have expected Aculyn 46 to thicken an oil-in-water nanoemulsion.                                          
                     The references cited by the examiner support a prima facie case of obviousness                     
              with respect to claim 1, which has not been rebutted by the examiner.  We affirm the                      
              rejection of claim 1.  Claims 2-9, 11-21, 23-25, 30, 33, 50, 51, and 55-69 fall with claim 1.             
              2.  Claims 70-72 and 75-84                                                                                
                     Appellants split claims 70-72 and 75-84 into four groups and argue them                            
              separately.  The arguments are substantially the same, however, so to avoid repetition                    
              we will address them together.                                                                            
                     Claim 71, 75, 79, and 80 are representative of Appellants’ claim groupings:                        
                     •  Claim 71 is directed to a “composition for caring for a keratin material”                       
                        (including hair), comprising the same nanoemulsion as defined by                                
                        claim 1.                                                                                        
                     •  Claim 75 is directed to a “non-therapeutic care process for a keratin                           
                        material comprising applying to said keratin material” the                                      
                        nanoemulsion defined by claim 1.                                                                
                     •  Claim 79 is directed to a “process for thickening oil-in-water                                  
                        nanoemulsions comprising including at least one nonionic polymer                                
                        comprising at least one hydrophobic block and at least one hydrophilic                          
                        block” in the nanoemulsion, along with an oil and an amphiphilic lipid.                         
                     •  Claim 80 is directed to the same nanoemulsion as defined by claim 1,                            
                        except that in claim 80, the nanoemulsion is said to contain “at least                          
                        one oily phase” instead of “at least one oil.”                                                  
                     Since the references relied on by the examiner suggest a hair conditioning                         
              composition comprising the ingredients in claim 1, the references also support a prima                    
              facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 71, 75, 79, and 80.  That is, they                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007