Appeal No. 2006-0012
Application No. 10/061,338
1994). However, we do not find it to be controlling. Unlike the
generic “complex” chemical compound structures described in
Baird, the present fact involves known hair treating additives,
such as hair conditioners, commonly used by one of ordinary skill
in the art to provide predictable properties for hair bleaching
compositions. As indicated supra, the predictable nature of
these conventional additives for hair bleaching compositions is
readily apparent from the prior art disclosure and the
appellants’ own disclosure. See also Dias, column 4, lines 41-
50. Moreover, as in Merck & Co., Corkill and Susi, the claimed
polydecene appears to be used for the identical purpose described
in Dias. Nowhere do the appellants indicate that the claimed
polydecene is used for a purpose other than hair conditioning.
See the specification in its entirety.
Thus, we determine that the examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness which has not be sufficiently rebutted
by the appellants. The appellants have not proffered, much less
argued, that the presence of the claimed polydecene in hair
bleaching compositions imparts unexpected properties or results.
CONCLUSION
Thus, based on the totality of record, including due
consideration of the appellants’ arguments, we determine that the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007