Appeal No. 2006-2248
Application No. 10/158,618
and by adding a limitation directed to the pH of the claimed composition.
Applicants also proceeded to add independent application claim 11. New claim 11
recited twenty-five (25) components of its claimed cosmetic composition and a
specific % w/w of each component with twenty-four (24) of the twenty-five (25)
recited components being specific chemical compounds.
In a telephonic interview that took place on January 20, 2000, the Examiner
informed the attorney of record that the application was in condition for allowance
subject to the cancellation of claims 1-10. The attorney of record authorized the
Examiner to cancel claims 1-10 and amend claim 11 by Examiner’s amendment in
order to place the application in condition for allowance. Claim 11 then issued as
patent claim 1.
The composition of the original application claims 1-10, rejected by the
Examiner based on prior art, did not contain certain limitations which the
Examiner refers to as “a specific composition with a particular concentration for
each ingredient”:
Appellants in the parent application canceled all the subject
matter drawn to claims 1-10 of the parent application and the
claim [11] that was allowed was to a specific composition with
a particular concentration for each ingredient (Ex. Ans. Page 6).
- 40 -
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007