Appeal 2007-0100
Application 10761,213
Mockli WO 95/01772 Jan. 19, 1995
Kao Corp. DE 295 12 302 Jan. 16, 1997
Cotteret US 5,735,908 Apr. 7, 1998
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a composition for dyeing
keratin fibers comprising at least one of the recited cationic direct dyes and
at least one cationic or amphoteric substantive polymer.
Appellant took an appeal in the Parent Application and, in a decision
dated November 25, 2003, the Board sustained the Examiner’s § 103
rejections of the same claims presently on appeal over the same prior art.
Appellant, in the present case, relies on a Declaration of the inventor
submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 as evidence, not of unexpected results,
but to show that a prima facie case has not been established.
Appealed claims 1-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cotteret in view of Mockli. Claims 1-23, 32-36,
and 41-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kao in view of Mockli.
Appellant has not presented separate arguments for any particular
claim on appeal. Accordingly, we will limit our consideration to the
Examiner’s rejections of claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied upon in support
thereof. However, for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer and
the prior Board decision, we find that the claimed subject matter would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103
in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejections.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013