Appeal No. 2006-1530 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/221,959
cationic polymer such as a chitosan and/or derivative thereof
(column 4, line 50 and column 6, line 50 through column 7, line 9
of U.S. Patent No. 6,572,663).
Given the teachings of Pitfield, as discussed above and in
the answer, we agree with the examiner that the applied prior art
would have rendered the subject matter of representative claim 11
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention. In this regard, it is our view that the express disclosure
of the limited list of ingredients from which the dye composition may be formed in
Pitfield, including ingredients corresponding to the here claimed ingredients would have
prima facie suggested the selection of a composition within the scope of appealed
representative claim 11 to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation
of success in obtaining a composition that is useful for dyeing hair.
See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846
(Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA 1972);
and In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 425 (CCPA 1971).
Appellants argue that Pitfield provides a long list of hair
dye ingredients such that Pitfield contains no teaching or
suggestion of any particular hair dye component or combination of
components as here claimed. In this regard, appellants note that
Pitfield discloses the use of a fatty alcohol dispersion and oil
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007