Appeal No. 2006-2731
Application No. 10/102,077
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 12-14
With respect to the disputed limitations, according to the Examiner, Coffindaffer
teaches (1) “suitable conditioning components selected from non-volatile silicone
conditioning agents, hydrocarbon oils, fatty ester oils and petrolatum” (Answer 3
(emphasis added2)); and (2) “two different particulate materials, one having particle size
of less than 2 microns.” Id. at 4. The Examiner admits that “Coffindaffer employs
silicone oil . . . in their examples but not the claimed triglyceride” (id.) but notes that “the
prior art teachings are not limited to preferred embodiments.” Id. at 6. The Examiner
further admits Coffindaffer does not teach “silicone-free compositions, as required by
claim 15.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner relies upon Thiel for the disclosure of (1) triglycerides, including at
least some of those claimed by Appellants,3 and (2) the advantages of using such oils.
Answer 4 (citing Thiel, col. 8, ll. 24-45 & col. 2, ll. 14-23 (“addition of vegetable oils as
condition[ing] agents is advantageous because the oils are natural, biodegradable and
inexpensive and at the same time provide enhanced conditioning”)). According to the
Examiner, such teachings would have suggested incorporating Thiel’s expressly recited
vegetable oils into Coffindaffer’s shampoo as a conditioning agent.
With respect to their “triglyceride” limitation, Appellants argue: “There is mere
passing reference in Coffindaffer et al. to fatty ester oils being among the useful
2 Triglycerides are a subgenus of the genus of fatty ester oils. Specification at 13,
ll. 28-31.
3 We note the disclosure of “glycerides” and “triglycerides” in Coffindaffer’s
Background section (Coffindaffer at 3, ll. 4 & 29) suggesting that the benefits of their use
in shampoos would have been well known to those skilled in the art.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013