Appeal No. 2006-0012
Application No. 10/061,338
provide any motivation to choose the polydecene compound from
Dias’ vast disclosure of ‘hair care ingredients.’” See, e.g.,
the Brief, page 10. We do not agree.
Dias, like the appellants, describes various conventional
additives which can be added to hair bleaching compositions.5
Compare Dias, columns 9-31, with the specification, pages 12-35.
Both Dias and the appellants rely on one of ordinary skill in
the art to select appropriate additives from the large number of
the conventional additives described in their specifications for
hair bleaching compositions.6 Of the conventional additives
5 As indicated supra, the specification describes a vast number of conventional additives
and nonionic and anionic polymers which can be added to the appellants’ hair bleaching
compositions. See the specification, pages 5-35. The specification, like the disclosure of Dias,
implies that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select appropriate conventional
additives and appropriate nonionic or anionic polymers from the appellants’ vast disclosure of
ingredients for their given hair bleaching compositions. To interpret otherwise is to hold the
specification as non-enabling in violation of the first paragraph of Section 112.
6 We presume that the subject matter disclosed and claimed in Dias is operative and
enabling. See In re Spence, 261 F.2d 244, 120 USPQ 82 (CCPA 1958).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007