Appeal No. 2006-1530 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/221,959
Moreover, appellants’ attempt at discrediting the disclosure
and hair dye composition teachings of Pitfield as including too
many possible ingredients to be suggestive of appellants’ dye
composition is clearly without merit and inconsistent with
appellants’ representative claim 11 and specification disclosure.
In this regard, representative claim 11 employs open
“comprising” language and does not limit the number, type and
amount of the composition ingredients to those expressly recited
therein. Indeed, a review of appellants’ specification pages 4
through 26 makes it manifest that the appealed representative
claim 11 encompasses a multitude of potential dye ingredients as
evident from a reading thereof in light of appellants’
specification. As for separately argued claim 15, the inclusion
of a cationic surfactant in the hair dye composition is clearly
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007