Appeal 2006-3082
Application 10/372,669
Application of Horino to claims
8. Horino’s description of a clay mineral (Horino, at Abstract (57) and
[0017]) meets the limitation of claim 2 of a “powdery base.” (Specification
at 13 discloses that the powdery base can be a clay mineral).
9. The disclosure of a clay mineral coated with an inorganic metal
hydroxide, such as aluminum hydroxide (Horino, at Abstract (57) and
[0018]), satisfies the limitation recited in claim 2 of a “powdery base and
aluminum hydroxide adhered to at least a portion of the surface of said
base.”
10. The difference between Horino’s composition and the claimed
composite powder is that claim 2 characterizes the latter as comprising “a
formation of spherically shaped particles and mesh-like formation of string
particles.”
11. It is the Examiner’s position that “the teachings of Horino suggest” that
the Horino its composition would comprise “a formation of spherically
shaped particles and mesh-like formation of string shaped particles” as
recited in claim 2 (Answer 4).
12. The Examiner’s presumption is based on the identity of components, of
structure (metal hydroxide “coated” powder of Horino compared to
aluminum hydroxide “adhered” powder of claim 2), and of function
(correcting skin color and blemishes) between the compositions (Answer 3-
4).
13. Alternatively, Horino describes the limitation of “a formation of
spherically shaped particles and mesh-like formation of string particles” as
recited in claim 2, where the fine particles with an average diameter of an
average diameter of 50 to 250 angstrom units (Horino, at Abstract (57))
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013