Appeal 2007-1135
Application 09/986,264
On reflection, we affirm the rejection of claim 103 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bechmann, Beck, and
Gruenbacher. Claim 104 falls together with claim 103.
Claim 105:
Appellant groups and argues claims 105, 106, and 110-112 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 105.
Claim 105 is drawn to a cosmetic product comprising a:
(1) container that includes means for breaking said at least one
breakable capsule, and
(2) cosmetic article that includes a substrate and at least one breakable
capsule disposed inside of the substrate.
For the reasons set forth with regard to claim 31 above, we find no
error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant directs attention to the argument made with regard to claim
31 and asserts that Gruenbacher “doesn’t provide any more suggestion,
motivation or disclosure for the arrangement claimed in [c]laim 105” (Br.
23-24). For the reasons set forth with regard to claim 31 we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s assertion.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 105 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bechmann, Beck, and
Gruenbacher. Claims 106 and 110-112 fall together with claim 105.
24
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013