Appeal No. 2005-1742 Page 3
Application No. 09/436,171
After careful review of the record and consideration of the issues before us, we
reverse.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Schreiber II and Dupuis.
Schreiber II is cited for teaching “water-in-oil emulsions comprising 30-
85% of an aqueous phase, and prefereably 1-20% of a lipid phase and a surface
active substance of formula (I) . . . . The reference lacks cationic polymers.”
Examiner’s Answer, page 3.
Dupuis is cited for teaching water-in-oil emulsions for use in cosmetic
products. See id. Dupuis teaches the use of cationic polymers comprising
0.001-5% of the composition, wherein the cationic agents are used a conditioning
agents. See id. at 3-4.
The rejection concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to add the cationic polymers of
Dupuis [ ] to the compositions of Schreiber [ ] because a) Schreiber
[ ] and Dupuis [ ] are both directed to cosmetic water-in-oil stick
emulsions, wherein lipsticks are specifically exemplified; b) Dupuis [
] teach[es] that adding cationic polymers to such emulsions results
in a conditioning effect; hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would
be motivated to add the cationic polymer taught by Dupuis [ ] into
the composition of Schreiber [ ] because of the expectation of
achieving a composition that imparts conditioning benefits to the
skin, especially the lips.
Id. at 4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007