Appeal 2007-0100
Application 10761,213
keratin fibers comprising direct dyes and the substantive conditioning
polymers claimed by Appellant. Although Kao does not disclose the
claimed cationic direct dyes, we are convinced, for the reasons set forth
above with respect to the other § 103 rejection, that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to employ the cationic direct dyes of
Mockli in the dyeing composition of Kao. While Kao does not teach the
specific direct dyes within the scope of the appealed claims, Kao does
provide the relevant teaching that “the cationic (basic) dyes are particularly
preferred since their stability and dye uptake properties are especially
enhanced by the addition of the guar gum derivative according to the
invention. (Kao translation 2 ¶ 4). We find that Kao’s particular preference
for cationic direct dyes would have clearly suggested the presently claimed
cationic direct dyes which are disclosed by Mockli.
Appellant maintains that “Möckli fails to teach or suggest that any of
its dyes would be compatible with Kao’s guar gums” (Br. 19 ¶ 1). However,
it is Kao that provides the relevant teaching that cationic dyes are
particularly preferred in combination with guar gum derivatives which
enhance their stability and dye uptake properties. Also, while Appellant
points out that Mockli discredits the preferred cationic dyes of Kao, such
discrediting is evidence why it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to substitute the cationic direct dyes of Mockli for those used
in Kao.
Appellant also relies upon the Declaration to show that a direct dye
disclosed in Kao produces an inferior dyeing composition when used in
combination with a guar gum. However, we did not find that a single
example of inferior results attributed to the presence of guar gum negates the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013