Appeal 2007- 2552 Application 10/276,428 8. The alkyl glycosides of Amalric are derived from alcohols (Amalric, col. 3, ll. 7-17). 9. Amalric describes using the emulsion to formulate syndets or dermatological cleansing bars (col. 5, ll. 13-15) and other personal care products such as shampoo, make-up removing milk, and body milk (Examples 8-10). C. Principles of Law When a claimed product appears to be identical or substantially identical to a product disclosed by the prior art, the burden is on the Applicants to prove that the product of the prior art does not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics or properties attributed to the claimed product. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). D. Analysis As an initial matter, we agree with Appellants that “one-phase microemulsion” as recited in the preamble of the claims limits the structural arrangement of composition claimed. Because it further limits the structure of what is claimed, this limitation is essential to point out the invention defined by the claims: In other words, it breathes life and meaning into the claim in a way that further limits it. See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 480-81 (CCPA 1951) (A preamble reciting "An abrasive article" was deemed essential to point out the invention defined by claims to an article comprising abrasive grains because “abrasive” further limited the structure of the article). Even so, we determine that the Examiner’s rejection of the claims as either anticipated or obvious is supported by a preponderance of the 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013