Ex Parte Hossel et al - Page 4


             Appeal No. 2007-0080                                                               Page 4                
             Application No. 09/771,595                                                                               

             inorganic UV filter (“sunblock”).  Tanner, column 1, lines 9-13; column 2, lines 53-57.                  
             The Examiner also relies on George for teaching that it was known in the art to                          
             incorporate sunscreen agents into hair care products.  Answer, page 4.  Based on these                   
             teachings, the Examiner concludes:                                                                       
                    it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the                         
                    time the invention was made to modify the hair care compositions of                               
                    EP 0 893 117 [Dieing] such that to employ UV filters of Tanner et al.  One                        
                    having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to                          
                    obtain compositions having improved photostability, chemical stability and                        
                    physical stability as suggested by Tanner et al.  One having ordinary skill                       
                    in the art would have been further motivated to do this to obtain                                 
                    compositions that would protect hair from UV radiation as suggested by                            
                    both Tanner et al. and George et al.                                                              
             Answer, page 4.                                                                                          
                    Appellants do not dispute that Dieing describes the copolymer recited in claim 1                  
             as component A), but challenge the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been                         
             obvious to have added Tanner’s surface-treated zinc oxide to it.  They argue                             
                    [i]n light of the technical background knowledge which is reflected in the                        
                    disclosures of the secondary references [Tanner and George] it is                                 
                    therefore clear that, at the time appellants made their invention, a person                       
                    of ordinary skill in the art considered inorganic pigments such as zinc                           
                    oxides suitable for sun protection of the skin.  The secondary references                         
                    fail, however, to suggest or imply that inorganic sunscreen agents would                          
                    be reasonably considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art as being                        
                    useful for the protection of hair.                                                                
             Brief, pages 5-6.                                                                                        
                    To establish obviousness, the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere,                              
             383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) has required that the following factors be taken into                    
             consideration: (a) the scope and contents of the prior art; (b) the differences between                  
             the prior art and the claimed subject matter; (c) the level of skill in the pertinent art; and           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007