Appeal No. 2007-0080 Page 6
Application No. 09/771,595
The Examiner relies on Tanner for teaching zinc oxide as a UV filter. However,
as Appellants argue, Tanner describes zinc oxide in a composition for topical
application to the skin, but does not disclose or suggest its use for hair. Tanner, column
1, lines 10-13; column 2, lines 48-51; column 3, lines 15-36.
George, which the Examiner relies on for its teaching that it is conventional to
add sunscreens to haircare products, describes zinc oxide and other inorganic UV
filters, but also discloses them for use in skin products, not in the context of hair.
“Inorganic sunscreens, often referred to as physical sunscreens, typically scatter, reflect
and absorb UV radiation while organic sunscreens generally absorb UV radiation.
Representative sunscreen components [including zinc oxide] capable of protecting
human skin from the harmful effects of UV-A and UV-B radiation are set forth below in
table 1.” George, column 4, lines 33-38. In sum, the scope and content of the prior art,
as reflected in the Tanner and George publications, teach that the inorganic UV filters
are used as sunscreens for the skin, but does not describe or suggest their use in
haircare products.
To sustain the Examiner’s rejection, we must find that despite the lack of a
disclosure or suggestion in the prior art of record to have added zinc oxide to a haircare
product, the skilled worker’s level of knowledge and skill would have made it obvious to
have used it to protect hair from the sun. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner
has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the level of skill was such that it
would have been obvious to have combined zinc oxide for skin with Dieing’s haircare
copolymer. Our conclusion is based on the following reasoning:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007