Appeal No. 2005-1428 Page 7
Application No. 09/930,320
such as acrylates, polysaccharide polymers, and the like; lathering aids
. . .; emollients . . .; pH adjusters, and preservatives.
Pages 4-5. Rath’s method involves base compositions comprising, among other things,
water and either surfactants or conditioning agents. See columns 3 and 5. The
specification does not define a “base composition” as one that necessarily contains a
thickener and therefore does not distinguish the claimed method from the one taught by
Rath.
Appellants also argue that “[t]he consumer is not intended to be involved in the
packaging of the kits disclosed in Rath et al., but only in the possible mixing of certain
kit components. In contrast, . . . in the present invention, the component parts of the
product are not dictated by the prepackaged kit . . . but by the precise needs of the
consumer.” Appeal Brief, page 7.
We also find this argument unpersuasive. Rath discloses that “one objective of
the invention is to provide a system which enables a user to formulate a variety of
shampoos, hair conditioners or styling compositions to best suit the hair care needs of
the user.” Col. 1, lines 22-25. Rath also teaches that “[t]o prepare the hair care
composition, the base . . . is combined with the desired enhancing additives,” and
mixed. Col. 13, lines 53-56. In view of these disclosures, Rath would have been read
by those skilled in the art to suggest a method in which the user of the hair care
composition chooses desired enhancing additives from among a plurality of them,
combines them with a base composition, and mixes them.
Finally, Appellants argue that, as defined in the instant specification, a thickener
is not an enhancing agent. See the Appeal Brief, pages 8 and 9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007