Appeal No. 2006-2731
Application No. 10/102,077
2, ll. 39-45. Thus, Thiel’s solution to the stability problem appears to be the addition of a
carboxyvinyl polymer and the use of a particular method “for preparing such
compositions wherein the incompatibility problem is circumvented.” Col. 2, ll. 30-45.
Thiel’s “suitable oily conditioning agents” include triglycerides such as those
claimed by Appellants. See Thiel, col. 8, ll. 24-45. According to Thiel, the advantages of
utilizing such oily conditioning agents are that they are “natural, biodegradable,
inexpensive, and readily available.” Col. 2, ll. 19-22. Thiel does not disclose any
particular particle size for the conditioning agent.
Neither Coffindaffer nor Thiel suggests eliminating silicone from their shampoo-
conditioning compositions. Coffindaffer prefers using silicone conditioning agents
(Coffindaffer at 14, l. 2), and Thiel discloses their usefulness in obtaining “some measure
of softness and wet-combing and to aid in processing.” Col. 9, ll. 4-6.
The Disputed Claim Limitations
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s determination that Thiel would have suggested
using, as one of the conditioning agents in Coffindaffer, a triglyceride having an average
droplet size in the range from 0.8 to 4 µm, or more preferably from 1.0 to 3.5 µm (claim
2). Br. 7-11. They further dispute his determination that claim 15, requiring that the
shampoo composition be “substantially free of silicone,” would have been obvious in
view of the cited prior art. Br. 11. The Examiner’s findings with respect to the
remaining limitations do not appear to be in dispute or in error.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013