Appeal No. 2005-1428 Page 4
Application No. 09/930,320
Claim 1 is directed to a method for providing a customized personal care product
to a consumer at a location different from where the base composition is prepared. The
method comprises providing a plurality (i.e., at least two) base compositions and a
plurality of variants from two classes of performance agents. The performance agents
are “fragrances, colorants, benefit agents [or] blends thereof” and the vehicles for the
variants within each class have at least two ingredients in common. The consumer is
allowed to choose a base composition and a variant from each class of performance
agents, then the selections are dosed into a container and mixed.
Claim 24 adds the limitations that the container has a volume of less than one
liter (claim 22) and has a neck and a cap without an orifice (claim 24).
2. Obviousness – claim 1
The examiner rejected claims 1-11, 13-22, and 25-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Rath,1 Rigg,2 and Stewart.3 Rigg and Stewart were cited only to meet
limitations in the dependent claims. We conclude that Rath, alone, would have made
the method of claim 1 prima facie obvious. Therefore we will not further discuss Rigg or
Stewart.
Rath teaches that hair care products are available as prepared formulations. “A
drawback of such products is that the user cannot alter the formulation to accommodate
their particular hair characteristics or to provide specialized treatment.” Col. 1, lines 11-
14. Rath “provide[s] a system which enables a user to formulate a variety of shampoos,
1 Rath et al., U.S. Patent 5,972,322, issued October 26, 1999.
2 Rigg et al., U.S. Patent 5,622,692, issued April 22, 1997.
3 Stewart, PCT application WO 98/30189, published July 16, 1998.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007