Ex Parte Fairley et al - Page 4

                   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 Ám, or more preferably from 1.0 to 3.5 Ám (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.                                                  


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013