Appeal 2007-0652
Application 10/320,028
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual determination that
Lorenzi, like Appellants, discloses the manufacture of a personal care
composition by blending a first aqueous composition and a second, optional,
composition in a homogenization device wherein variants, such as
fragrances and colorants, are included in the composition. As recognized by
the Examiner, Lorenzi does not expressly teach moving the first aqueous
phase through a blending tube at the recited rate. However, we agree with
the Examiner that Bechtel evidences the obviousness of formulating
emulsions by moving the composition through a blending tube at the
claimed rate for realizing the known advantages of a continuous process.
Also, the Examiner appreciates that Lorenzi does not teach the
essence of the invention described in Appellants' Specification, namely,
adding the variant ingredients, such as color and fragrance, at a stage
downstream from the homogenizer. However, Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner's factual finding that "[C]ornelis discloses adding a
polyunsaturated fatty acid to an emulsion after emulsification (¶ 0062) and
the addition of vitamins, minerals and trace elements after cooling the
emulsion from 60șC to 5șC (¶¶ 0007-0009)" (page 5 of Answer, penultimate
para.). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Lorenzi
by adding the color and fragrance components downstream from the blender
in order to realize the advantage taught by Cornelis, i.e., to minimally
expose these variants to conditions that can cause degradation (see Cornelis
at ¶ 0028).
We also agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the Kacher disclosure, to blend the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013