Appeal No. 2006-1759 Παγε 15
Application No. 09/984,184
Concerning the examiner’s separate obviousness rejection of
claims 51 and 52, over the combined teachings of Collin and
Mellul, as discussed above, further in view of Papantoniou, we
observe that appellants do not argue the claims separately.
Thus, we select claim 51 as the representative claim on which we
shall decide this appeal as to this ground of rejection.3
The examiner additionally relies on Papantoniou to show the
prior art use in a cosmetic composition, such as mascara, of the
particular type of fat-soluble film forming polymer(s) required
by representative claim 51. Based on the additional teachings of
Papantoniou with respect to the good adherence and brightness
obtained in mascara compositions or the improved adherence in a
makeup cosmetic composition, each employing a polymer
corresponding to that required by representative claim 51, we
agree with the examiner that it would have been prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a fat-
3 While we select claim 51 as the representative claim for this ground of rejection,
we note an anomaly in that claim 52, which depends from claim 51, was included in the
examiner’s above-discussed obviousness rejection that was affirmed over the combined
teachings of Collin and Mellul alone based on our consideration of that rejection on the
basis of representative claim 1.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007