Appeal No. 2006-1530 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/221,959
component that appellants do not require. In sum, it is
appellants’ view that Pitfield does not furnish the requisite
suggestion to employ the here claimed components in the hair dye
given the large number of possible combinations of the long list
of possible ingredients disclosed in Pitfield.
We disagree for reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer and above. Concerning this matter, we note that the
Pitfield is not required to furnish an example or explicitly
describe a preferred embodiment composition within the scope of
representative claim 11 to render that subject matter
unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rather,
a prior art reference may be relied upon for all that it would
have reasonably conveyed to one having ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably arrived at a dye composition corresponding
to the claimed composition by simply following the teachings of
Pitfield.4
4 Indeed, appellants seemingly acknowledge that the use of alkyl oligoglycosides
in hair dye compositions and the use of chitosan salts in hair treatment formulations has
proved advantageous. See page 2 of appellants’ specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007