Appeal 2007-0652
Application 10/320,028
significance or criticality to the claimed use of an electronically controlled
servo-driven rotary pump. We observe that no mention of the claimed rotary
pump is found in the SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION in appellants'
Specification. The Specification describes the invention as the later stage
addition of variants. The Specification simply states that delivery of fluids
from the tanks into the blending tube can be achieved with the rotary pumps
to effect careful control of flow (see page 9, para. [00027]) This is the same
advantage taught by Phallen.
Consequently, based on the collective teachings of the prior art cited
by the Examiner, we find that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed process for manufacturing a
personal care composition. We note that Appellants base no arguments
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results,
which would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the
applied prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
cam
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013