Appeal 2007-0533
Application 09/930,320
2004) (adding printed instructions describing a new use for a kit composed
of old materials did not distinguish the claimed kit from the prior art). No
such relationship is created by the label defined by claim 6.
Appellants’ only argument with respect to this rejection is that Rigg
“does not disclose or suggest the vehicle of each additive to have at least two
ingredients in common” (Br. 9). That limitation, however, is disclosed by
Rath. We affirm the rejection of claim 6 as obvious in view of Rath,
Stewart, and Rigg. Claims 20 and 21 fall with claim 6.
5. REJECTION OF CLAIMS 23 AND 24
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Rath, Stewart, Rigg, and Tartaglione. As discussed above, claim 24
limits the size and configuration of the container used in the method of claim
1.
We affirmed the rejection of claim 24 over the same references in
Appeal 2005-1428 (Appeal 2005-1428 Decision, pp. 8-9). The only issue,
then, is whether the amendment to claim 1 distinguishes the claimed method
from that suggested by the references. For the same reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 1, we conclude that it does not.
Appellants argue that
Tartaglione does not disclose how personal care products can
be custom formulated nor the relationship of the ingredients
that are required by the inventive method of custom formulating
such products. There would be no motivation to one skilled in
the art to combine Rath, et al., with Rigg, et al., and Stewart in
further view of Tartaglione to obtain the invention of claims 23
and 24 absent impermissible hindsight of Appellant’s [sic]
invention.
(Br. 9.)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013