Appeal No. 2006-0012
Application No. 10/061,338
Cir. 1984). This does not mean that the cited prior art
references must specifically suggest making the combination. B.F.
Goodrich Co. V. Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577,
1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Nilssen, 851
F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Rather,
the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
prior art references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d
1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). This test requires us to take into
account not only the specific teachings of the prior art refer-
ences, but also any inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
With the above precedents in mind, we turn to the examiner’s
Section 103 rejection. As is apparent from the Brief and the
Reply Brief, the appellants do not challenge the examiner’s
finding at pages 2 and 3 of the Answer that Dias describes
a hair bleaching composition comprising peroxygenated
salts such as perborates..., nonionic amphiphilic
polymer having at least one fatty chain..., and
polydecene... The composition may be in a powder
form...
Rather, the appellants only argue that the examiner “fails to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007