Appeal 2007-0042
Application 09/746,880
(d) a composition on at least a portion of the bodyfacing surfaces of
the bodyside liner that includes from about 40 to about 95 percent by weight
of emollient, from about 0.1 to about 40 percent by weight of viscosity
enhancer and from about 0.1 to about 20 percent by weight of decoupling
polymer.
The Examiner has relied upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Krzysik 6,149,934 Nov. 21, 2000
Beerse 6,294,186 B1 Sep. 25, 2001
ISSUES ON APPEAL
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Krzysik in view of Beerse (Answer 3).
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not explained why one of
ordinary skill in the art would look at the components of the water based
solutions of Beerse and be motivated to use them in the nonaqueous
compositions of Krzysik (Br. 8).
Appellants also contend that the Examiner has “picked and choosed”
from the many product forms and possible components of Beerse, and has
not explained why one of skill in the art would have been motivated to select
the thickening agents of Beerse to be used in the lotion compositions of
Krzysik, especially in view of the large number of groups of compounds
disclosed in Beerse (Br. 8 and 10).
The Examiner contends that Krzysik recognizes the addition of many
optional components, and Beerse teaches the use of a thickening agent, such
as a polysaccharide, for its attendant benefits in a skin care composition
(Answer 5-6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013