Appeal 2007-0100
Application 10761,213
We consider first the § 103 rejection of claims 1-42 over Cotteret in
view of Mockli. Appellant does not dispute that Cotteret teaches a
composition for dyeing keratin fibers comprising cationic or
amphoteric substantive polymers within the scope of the appealed claims
and direct dyes. As acknowledged in Appellant’s Specification, it was
known in the art to vary the shades obtained with permanent, oxidation dyes
by adding semi-permanent direct dyes to the composition. As recognized by
the Examiner, Cotteret does not disclose the particular cationic direct dyes
encompassed by the appealed claims. However, Appellant does not
challenge the Examiner’s finding that Mockli teaches the presently claimed
cationic direct dyes in compositions used to dye keratin fibers, and explains
that such cationic direct dyes
can be used to achieve in a very simple way and under general
conditions very deep dyeings having excellent light, shampoos and
crock fastness properties. Owing to their extremely clean shades, they
also extend the range of possible mixed shades considerably,
especially in the direction of the increasingly important brilliant
fashion colours.
(Mockli ¶ bridging pp. 1-2). Hence, based on the collective teachings of
Cotteret and Mockli, we concur with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the claimed cationic
direct dyes in the composition of Cotteret to realize the benefits described by
Mockli. Also, since Cotteret teaches that the direct dyes may be added to
compositions containing oxidation dyes and cationic or amphoteric
substantive polymers, and Mockli discloses that the presently claimed
cationic direct dyes may be formulated with cationic conditioning polymers,
we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013