Appeal 2007-0533
Application 09/930,320
BACKGROUND
The present application was the subject of a previous appeal to this
board (Appeal 2005-1428, decided Sept. 29, 2005). In that appeal, we
affirmed the Examiner’s rejections based on obviousness but designated the
affirmances as new grounds of rejection because our reasoning differed from
that of the Examiner. Appellants opted to reopen prosecution and amended
the claims. The Examiner rejected the amended claims for obviousness and
this appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
1. CLAIMS
Claims 1-11 and 13-29 are pending and on appeal. The claims subject
to each rejection have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall
together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We will focus on claims 1, 6, and 24,
which read as follows:
1. A method for providing a customized, personal care product to a
consumer at a location remote from a second location in which a personal
care product base composition is prepared, comprising:
(a) providing a selection from a plurality of said personal care base
compositions;
(b) providing a selection from a plurality of variants from a first class
of performance agents, each of said variants being delivered in a first
vehicle, said first vehicle for each of said variants having at least two
ingredients in common with each other, said first vehicle being compatible
with a mixture of said personal care base composition and a second class of
performance agents different from the first class;
(c) providing a selection from a plurality of variants of said second
class of a performance agents, each of said variants being delivered in a
second vehicle, said second vehicle for each of said variants having at least
two ingredients in common with each other;
(d) permitting the consumer to select, in any sequence, said at least
one personal care base composition; at least one variant from said first class
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013