Appeal No. 2005-0702 Page 6
Application No. 09/443,505
ingredients disclosed in the reference.” (Brief, p. 9). But Lim suggests that each of the
ingredients is useful. That the prior art discloses other optional ingredients does not somehow
reduce the obviousness of using the specifically suggested oxidation bases. See Merck & Co.,
Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.1989), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not presented a convincing line of
reasoning as to why a beneficial result would have been produced by combining the ingredients
disclosed in Lim and Akram (Brief, p. 10). First, this argument overlooks the fact that both Lim
and Akram disclose the claimed coupler. Akram is not being used in the rejection to supply an
ingredient missing from the dyeing composition of Lim, but to provide further evidentiary
support for the motivation for using the ingredients disclosed by Lim. Second, the disclosure of
Akram is not as limiting as Appellant characterizes it. Akram may not expressly exemplify the
use of the coupler with the claimed substituted para-aminophenols, however, there is a non-
limiting mention of para-aminophenols and functionalized para-aminophenols (Akram, col. 9, 1.
15 and ll. 18-23) and a statement that the coupler will “form intensive brown, blonde, violet and
blue shades of high heat stability and fastness to light with a large number of the known
developer substances.” (Akram, col. 4, ll. 7-18).
Appellant further argues that the desire to modify shades would not have motivated one
to combine the cited references with a reasonable expectation of success (Brief, p. 11).
According to Appellant, “while it is true that couplers may be used to modify the shade or color
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007