Appeal 2007-0321
Application 10/669,547
phrase “consisting essentially of” encompasses the compositions suggested
by the references.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Ex parte Obiaya,
227 USPQ 58 (BPAI 1985), is improper because the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, as required by Obiaya (Br.
12).
For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree that the Examiner
has failed to establish the prima facie obviousness of claim 16. Instead, we
agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have considered it
obvious to pre-treat a chemical depilation site with a composition having
90% lipophilic material. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 16.
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 7, 12-15, and 17
Claims 7, 12-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over LaHann, Michaels, and Orlow (Answer 6-9).
The Examiner again cites the combination of LaHann and Michaels as
suggesting treating skin with an anti-irritant composition having 90%
lipophilic materials before chemical depilation (id. at 6-7). The Examiner
concedes that LaHann does not specifically mention placing the pretreatment
and depilatory compositions in a kit as recited in claim 7, but cites Orlow as
teaching that “it is a well known practice in personal care composition art to
package the products with a printed instructions as a label or package insert
directing the use of such composition” (id. at 8).
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have
considered it obvious to package a pretreatment composition comprising
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013