Appeal 2007-1210
Application 10/258,733
reasons set for in the arguments presented in the Brief and Reply Brief (Br.
9-13: Reply Br. 2-7).
The Examiner has not established that Cho or Takano teach or suggest
the use of free arginine or a claimed salt thereof in a cosmetic preparation,
much less as part of a textile product in the manner claimed here. Also, the
Examiner disavows reliance on Nogata, the sole applied reference directed
to a textile product, for disclosing the use of arginine, or any salt form
thereof in a textile product, much less the claimed one.
Nonetheless, the Examiner supplies an obviousness position based on
selected portions of the disclosures of each of the applied references (see the
Final Office Action, the Examiner’s Answer and the applied references in
their entirety). In so doing, however, the Examiner has taken at least some
of the references’ disclosures out of context and cobbled bits and pieces
together without providing persuasive reasoning to support the asserted
modifications. The Examiner has not established that the proposed
modifications would have been expected to result in a product corresponding
to the here-claimed product.
In other words, the Examiner’s rationale for the rejection falls short of
identifying “a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013