Appeal 2007-1135
Application 09/986,264
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”)).
On this record, we combine a teaching of an article comprising liquid
containing capsules (Findings of Fact (FF) 1-3) with a teaching of an article
comprising a substrate and capsules containing cosmetic or therapeutic
materials, which after breaking the capsules and dispersing the capsules
contents onto the substrate, the substrate must be contacted with water (FF 6
and 7). In our opinion, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine
Bechmann and Beck to arrive at an article that has both cosmetic and liquid
containing capsules so that once the cosmetic containing capsules are broken
and the cosmetic dispersed onto the substrate, the liquid containing capsules
can be utilized to wet the substrate. In our opinion, this combination is
nothing more than the combination of familiar elements according to known
methods which will yield a predictable results. KSR Int’l, 127 S. Ct. at 1739,
82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bechmann and Beck.
Claims 2-13, 24, 25, and 27-30 fall together with claim 1.
Claim 14:
Appellant groups and argues claims 14-23 and 26 together; therefore
these claims will stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Accordingly, we limit our discussion to representative claim 14. Claim 14
ultimately depends from and further limits the substrate and the “at least one
breakable capsule” of claim 1.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013