Appeal No. 2005-1827
Application No. 10/227,761
guidance on the amounts in which these benefit agents must be present in the
composition in order to produce the desired results. The cited reference by the
Examiner provides a benefit agent in the amounts required by the claimed
invention. Appellants have not directed us to evidence which establishes
otherwise.
The Examiner rejected claim 86 under Section 102(b) over Goderis. The
Appellants’ arguments concerning patentability of the claimed invention are
the same as presented in the previous rejections. The Examiner has determined
that the Goderis reference describes a composition that comprises the claimed
benefit agent. For the reasons presented above we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 86.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner rejected claim 76 and 77 over the combination of Siegler
and Lesko. We affirm. We select claim 76 as representative.
Claim 76 specifies that the treating composition contains conditioning
agents, in particular acrylic syntans.
Upon consideration of the respective positions presented by the Examiner
and the Appellants regrading this rejection we find ourselves in agreement with
the Examiner.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007