Appeal 2007-1135
Application 09/986,264
On reflection, we affirm the rejection of claim 95 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bechmann, Beck, and
Gruenbacher. Claims 96-102 and 114 fall together with claim 95.
Claim 103:
Appellant groups and argues claims 103 and 104 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 103. Claim 103
is drawn to a cosmetic article comprising:
(1) a substrate having:
(a) at least one pocket therein that includes a breakable capsule
containing a liquid; and
(b) a holding portion for holding the article during use; and
(2) a cosmetic composition disposed such that, when the liquid
containing capsule is broken, the liquid wets the cosmetic composition.
Appellant asserts that the combination of Bechmann, Beck, and
Gruenbacher does not teach the claimed arrangement (Br. 19-20). We are
not persuaded by Appellant’s assertion.
As discussed above with regard to claim 95 the combination of
Bechmann, Beck, and Gruenbacher teaches a cosmetic article comprising at
least one pocket that contains a liquid containing capsule, wherein a
cosmetic composition is disposed in such a manner that, when broken, the
liquid from the capsule(s) wets the cosmetic composition. In addition, the
combination of Bechmann, Beck, and Gruenbacher teaches a substrate layer
that enhances the grippability of the article closest to the hand, e.g., a
holding portion for holding the article during use (FF 17). Accordingly, we
find no error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
23
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013