Ex Parte Legrand et al - Page 4



          Appeal No. 2006-0012                                                        
          Application No. 10/061,338                                                  

               These hair bleaching compositions are said to be “stable               
          upon storage” and “capable of being mixed only with aqueous                 
          hydrogen peroxide compositions having a titre of not more than 40           
          volumes.”  See the specification, page 3.  The compositions are             
          also said to be “homogeneous, stable, ready-to-use bleaching                
          compositions that are easy to apply” and produce “intense and               
          homogeneous bleaching results without rendering the hair coarse.”           
           Id.  Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in                 
          representative claim 14 which is reproduced below:                          
               1. A pulverulent composition for bleaching human keratin               
          fibers comprising, in a medium that is suitable for bleaching:              
               at least one peroxygenated salt;                                       
               at least one polymer chosen from nonionic amphiphilic and              
          anionic amphiphilic polymers, wherein said at least one polymer             
          comprises at least one fatty chain; and                                     
               at least one polydecene of formula C10nH[(20n)+2], in which n          
          ranges from 3 to 9, present in an amount by weight of less than             
          10% relative to the total weight of the composition.                        
                                 PRIOR ART REFERENCE                                  
               The sole prior art reference relied upon by the examiner in            
                                                                                     
               4 The appellants have not supplied substantive arguments for the separate patentability
          the individual claims on appeal.  See the Brief and the Reply Brief in their entirety.  Therefore,
          for purposes of this appeal, we select claim 1 as representative of the claims on appeal and
          decide the propriety of the examiner’s rejection set forth in the Answer based on this claim alone
          consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192(c) (7) (2003) and 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
                                          4                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007