Appeal No. 2004-2322 Page 5
Application No. 09/385,412
sheen, softness, ease of styling . . ., better feel and durability.” Column 10, lines 34-45
(emphasis added). Mougin discloses exemplary “setting spray[s]” in which a
composition comprising the polycondensate is packaged in a pump bottle or “in a
sprayer which can be recharged with compressed air.” Column 18, line 54 to column
19, line 14. The compositions were found to “impart[ ] good behaviour to the hairstyle.”
Column 19, line 13.
As the examiner conceded, Mougin does not disclose the aerosol container
defined by instant claim 1. However, the examiner cited Dunne as teaching such a
container. The examiner characterized Dunne as teaching “an aerosol container
containing a propellant gas and having an initial flow rate under 0.6 g/s and 0.35 mm
nozzle diameter, which produce ‘a fine foam and good atomization’.” Examiner’s
Answer, page 3. Appellants do not dispute this characterization of the secondary
reference, and we agree with the examiner that the aerosol container disclosed by
Dunne suggests the limitations recited in claim 1. For example, Dunne teaches that the
device provides “initial product flow rates of under 0.6 g/s” for conventional hair sprays
(column 16, lines 10-12).
Dunne also discloses that the ratio of propellant to product (and therefore also
propellant to organic solvent) were recognized as result-affecting variables. See
column 16, lines 1-5 (“The passage sizes are dependent on the physical properties of
the liquid product . . . , the initial fill ratio of product volume to total container volume,
and the initial container fill pressure.”). See also column 10, lines 11-32:
The form and characteristics of the final spray at the exit orifice are found
to remain essentially constant throughout the discharge of the liquid
product. This results from . . . ensuring that the residual pressure . . . is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007