L'OREAL

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 22, 2021

2021001632 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/392,899 12/28/2016 Fabien Pascal BOULINEAU 085137-608265 7757
143687 7590 11/22/2021
POLSINELLI PC (L''Oreal USA)
1000 Louisiana Street
Fifty-Third Floor
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
PROSSER, ALISSA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
DC-IPDocketing@Polsinelli.com
LBrabson@Polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FABIEN PASCAL BOULINEAU, SARAH BARRIE
MACHOVER, MINLI SHI, FRÉDÉRIC SIMONET, and ANTHONY D
ANGELO
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899
Technology Center 1600
BEFORE DONALD E. ADAMS, TINA E. HULSE, and
JOHN E. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHNEIDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16–17, 19, 21, 26, 28–
32, and 35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as L’Oréal. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a hair cosmetic composition for lifting or
altering the color of keratinous substrates such as hair. The composition
colors or alters the color of the hair in an environmentally friendly manner,
minimizes the damage done to the hair and is inexpensive to produce. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A hair cosmetic composition for lifting or altering the color of
keratinous substrates comprising:
a. about 2% to about 20% by weight of ammonium
hydroxide and ethanolamine;
b. about 2% to about 25% by weight of hydrogenated
vegetable oil and at least one fatty acid ester;
c. about 1% to about 10% by weight of at least one
surfactant selected from anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants
and mixtures thereof;
d. about 0.1% to about 5% of at least one cationic polymer;
e. about 0.1% to about 5% by weight of at least one
thickening agent;
f. at least one solvent selected from water, organic solvents
and mixtures thereof;
g. optionally, at least one colorant; and
h. about 0.5% to about 3% by weight of at least one
antioxidant or reducing agent;
wherein all percentages by weight are based on the total
weight of the hair cosmetic composition; and
the hair cosmetic composition is free of mineral oil.
Appeal Br. Supp. (Claims App. 1).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

3
Name Reference Date
Frischling, et al. US 4,659,573 Apr. 21, 1987
Allard, et al. US 2011/0203605 A1 Aug. 25, 2011
Tan, et al. US 2012/0325251 A1 Dec. 27, 2012
Weser, et al. US 2014/0298597 A1 Oct. 9, 2014
Reichert, et al.2 WO 2012/006957 A1 Jan. 21, 2010
Lubrizol, Merquat™ 100 polymer,
https://www.lubrizol.com/Personal-Care/Products/Product-
Finder/Products-Data/182
REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected the pending claims as follows:
Claims 1, 5, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 28, and 29 have been rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Allard, Reichert
and Frischling.
Claims 8 and 15 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tan in view of Allard, Reichert, Frischling, and Weser.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 28–32, and 35 have been
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allard in view of Tan,
Reichert, and Weser.3
OPINION
Obviousness Based on Tan, Allard, Reichert, and Frischling
Issue
The issue with respect to this rejection is whether a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of

2 Citations are to the English machine translation of record.
3 Claims 23, 33, and 34 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failure to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 4. That rejection
has been withdrawn. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

4
claims 1, 5, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 28, and 29 would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made over
Tan combined with Allard, Reichert and Frischling.
The Examiner finds Tan teaches aqueous compositions for lifting
color and/or imparting shine comprising:
a) at least one fatty monoamine compound;
b) at least one nonionic surfactant, the nonionic
surfactant present from 0.1 to 70 wt%, 1 to 20 wt% (paragraphs
[0025] and [0035]), as required by instant claim lc;
c) at least one compound chosen from an alkyl ether
carboxylic acid (carboxylic anionic surfactant as evidenced by
paragraphs [0130]-[0132] of the instant specification), an alkyl
ether carboxylate, a fatty acid having from about 6 to about 40
carbon atoms, and mixtures thereof, the compound present from
greater than Oto 40 wt%, I to 10 wt% (paragraph [0051]), as
required by instant claims lc, 11 and 31c;
d) at least one oxidizing agent chosen, for example, from
a peroxide such as hydrogen peroxide, a persulfate such as
potassium persulfate, a perborate, a percarbonate, alkali metal
bromates, ferricyanides or a mixture thereof (paragraphs
[0053]-[0055]);
e) optionally, at least one thickening agent chosen from
polymeric thickeners and nonpolymeric thickeners, the
thickening agent present from greater than Oto 15 wt%, 1 to 5
wt% (paragraphs [0057]-[0060]), as required by instant
claims le, 17, 19 and 31e;
f) optionally, at least one alkaline agent chosen from
organic amines inclusive of monoethanolamine, the alkaline
agent present from 0.01 to 30 wt%, 1 to 10 wt% (paragraphs
[0061]-[0062], [0065]-[0066], [0081] and [0090]), as required
by instant claims la, 5 and 31a; when the composition
comprises more than one alkaline agent, including an
alkanolamine and ammoniumhydroxides or salts thereof, the
amount of organic amine(s) are, for example, higher than the
amount of ammonia/ammonium hydroxide (paragraph [0088]),
as required by instant claims la, 5 and 31a;
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

5
g) optionally, at least one fatty substance other than a
fatty acid chosen from lower alkanes having from 6 to 16
carbon atoms, fatty alcohols, esters of fatty acids (fatty acid
ester), esters of fatty alcohols, oils such as mineral, vegetable
and non-silicone oils, non-silicone waxes and silicones, the
fatty substance present from 10 to 80 wt%, 20 to 55 wt%
(paragraphs [0093]-[0094], [0097], [0099], [0102], [0106],
[0144]-[0145] and [0147]); as required by instant claims lb
and 31b, and
h) optionally, at least one salt.

Final Act. 6–7.
With respect to the limitation calling for the composition to be
free of mineral oil, the Examiner finds Tan renders this limitation
obvious as Tan teaches compositions that do and do not contain
mineral oil. Id. at 8.
The Examiner finds Tan teaches the use of jojoba oil which is a
hydrogenated vegetable oil. Id. at 9.
The Examiner finds Reichert teaches hair dye compositions which
contain hydrogenated vegetable oils. Id. at 10. The Examiner finds
Frischling teaches the use of a mineral oil substitute in cosmetic
compositions to avoid a perceived health hazard from using mineral oil. Id.
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the compositions of Tan for lifting color and/or
imparting shine to specifically include hydrogenated vegetable
oils inclusive of jojoba oils as taught by Reichert in order to
impart an increase in sheen, a pleasing suppleness and an
increased fiber strength. There would be a reasonable
expectation of success because Tan teach the at least one fatty
substance may be selected from vegetable oils and waxes
inclusive of jojoba.
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

6
Id.
The Examiner finds that Tan does not disclose the recited amounts of
antioxidant or reducing agent required by the claims. Id. at 11. The
Examiner finds that Allard provides the missing element in that Allard
teaches the addition of 0.1 to 20 wt % antioxidant to a lifting composition.
Id.
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
include antioxidants or/and reducing agents inclusive of
erythorbic acid or/and powered sodium metabisulfite in the
compositions of Tan optionally in view of Reichert and
Frischling for lifting color and/or imparting shine in amounts
from 0.1 to 20 wt% as taught by Allard because Allard teach
this amount is suitable for including within lifting
compositions. There would be a reasonable expectation of
success because Tan teach the compositions can also comprise
at least one additive inclusive of antioxidants or reducing
agents.
Id. at 11–12.
Appellant contends the examples of Tan teach compositions that
contain mineral oil and do not contain ammonium hydroxide. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant contends that one skilled in the art would not modify Tan to
remove mineral oil as compositions containing ethanolamine typically
require mineral oil. Id.
Appellant also contends that the claimed compositions exhibit
improved color lifting and improved color deposition properties. Id. To
support this contention Appellant offers the Declaration of Sarah Machover.4

4 Declaration of Sarah Machover Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, filed July
12, 2019. (“Machover Decl.”)
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

7
Id. at 9–11. In her Declaration, Ms. Machover discusses the results of a test
reported in the Specification where a composition of the claimed invention
was compared with one of the prior art. Machover Decl. ¶¶ 4–6. Ms.
Machover testifies that it was surprising that the claimed composition
exhibited significantly more color deposition than the prior art composition
given that one skilled in the art would expect using ethanolamine would
result in an inferior product. Id. ¶ 6.
Finally, Appellant contends that Bailey5 teaches away from the use of
ethanolamine. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant contends that Bailey teaches using
ethanolamine causes more hair damage than ammonia, thus discouraging the
use of ethanolamine. Id.
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, reasoning on scope and
content of the prior art, and conclusions set out in the Final Action and
Answer regarding this rejection. We find the Examiner has established a
prima facie showing that the subject matter of the claims would have been
obvious over Tan combined with Allard, Reichert and Frischling to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Appellant has
not produced evidence showing, or persuasively argued, that the Examiner’s
determinations on obviousness are incorrect. Only those arguments made by
Appellant in the Brief have been considered in this Decision. Arguments not
presented in the Brief are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2020).

5 Bailey, et al. Comparison of damage to human hair fibers caused by
monoethanolamine- and ammonia-based hair colorants, 65 J. Cosmet. Sci. 1
(2014) (“Bailey”)
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

8
We have identified claim 1 as representative; therefore, all claims fall with
claim 1. We address Appellant’s arguments below.
Appellant contends that Tan requires the use of mineral oil in that
Example 1 of Tan shows the use of ethanolamine with mineral oil. Appeal
Br. 9. Appellant points to the teaching in the present Specification and the
testimony of Ms. Machover that hair coloring compositions containing
ethanolamine usually require the presence of mineral oil. Id. citing Spec. ¶ 4;
Machover Decl. ¶ 2. Appellant also contends that the examples of Tan do
not teach the inclusion of ammonium hydroxide. Id.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but are not persuaded that
the rejection is in error. While Example 1 of Tan does not teach the inclusion
of ammonium hydroxide and includes mineral oil, Tan ¶ 251, the rejection is
not based on the examples of Tan alone, but on the teachings of Tan as a
whole. When determining obviousness, “the prior art as a whole must be
considered. The teachings are to be viewed as they would have been viewed
by one of ordinary skill.” In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir.
1986). We find that Tan, viewed as a whole, in combination with the
secondary references teaches the combination of ethanolamine and
ammonium hydroxide and the exclusion of mineral oil.
Tan teaches “[i]n certain preferred embodiments, when the
composition comprises more than one alkaline agent, including an
alkanolamine and ammoniumhydroxides or salts thereof, the amount of
organic amine(s) are, for example, higher than the amount of
ammonia/ammonium hydroxide.” Tan ¶ 88. We agree with the Examiner
that this teaches the inclusion of both ethanolamine and ammonium
hydroxide as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5–6.
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

9
With respect to mineral oil, Tan teaches the use of fatty substances
chosen from “lower alkanes, fatty alcohols, esters of fatty acid, esters of
fatty alcohol, oils such as mineral, vegetable, animal and synthetic non-
silicone oils, non-silicone waxes and silicones.” Tan ¶ 97. Tan teaches the
use of hydrogenated jojoba oil as a fatty substance that can be used in the
compositions taught by Tan. Id. ¶ 102. Frischling teaches that the use of
mineral oil in cosmetic compositions may present health issues. Frischling
col. 1. ll. 35–44. We agree with the Examiner that the teachings of Frischling
would lead one skilled in the art to use an alternative to mineral oil such as
jojoba oil in the practice of the composition taught in Tan. Final Act. 10.
Appellant contends that a composition containing both ethanolamine
and ammonium hydroxide without mineral oil produces unexpectedly
superior results when compared to a similar composition that includes
mineral oil. Appeal Br. 9–11. Appellant supports this contention with the
Declaration of one of the inventors, Ms. Machover.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments and Ms. Machover’s
Declaration and are not persuaded that the evidence of unexpected results is
sufficient to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
“It is well established that the objective evidence of nonobviousness
must be commensurate in scope with the claims.” In re Lindner, 457 F.2d
506, 508 (CCPA 1972). “[C]ommensurate in scope” means that the evidence
provides a reasonable basis for concluding that the untested embodiments
encompassed by the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested
embodiment(s). See id. (“Here, only one mixture of ingredients was tested . .
. . The claims, however, are much broader in scope, . . . and we have to agree
with the Patent Office that there is no ‘adequate basis for reasonably
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

10
concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included by
the claims would behave in the same manner as the [single] tested
composition.’”) (bracketed material in original).
As in Lindener, Appellant has presented testing of only one
embodiment of the invention. Machover Decl. Table 1. Appellant has not
put forth nor do we discern any reasonable basis to conclude that the various
combinations of different components and amounts of components will
behave the same as the exemplified composition.
Finally, Appellant argues that Bailey teaches away from the use of
ethanolamine in hair colorants. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that Bailey
teaches that monoethanolamine is less effective than ammonia, and it can
cause more damage to the hair. Id. Appellant contends that this would lead
one skilled in the art to use ammonia alone rather than a mixture of ammonia
and ethanolamine. Id.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments and remain unpersuaded.
While Bailey suggests that ethanolamine may be less desirable than
ammonia, we do not find that it teaches away from its use.
“Although a reference that teaches away is a significant factor to be
considered in determining unobviousness, the nature of the teaching is
highly relevant, and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious
composition does not become patentable simply because it has been
described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In
re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here although Bailey teaches
that ethanolamine may be inferior to ammonia, we do not find that it would
lead one skilled in the art away from the combination of ethanolamine and
ammonium hydroxide, especially given Tan’s specific teaching of a
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

11
preferred embodiment combining alkanolamines with ammonium hydroxide.
Tan ¶ 88.
Appellant presents an argument distinguishing claims 30 and 32 from
the teachings of Tan. Appeal Br. 12–13. We do not address those arguments
here as the Examiner has not rejected those claims in this rejection. Ans. 8.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing we conclude that a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
claims 1, 5, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 28, and 29 would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made over
Tan combined with Allard, Reichert, and Frischling.
Obviousness Based on Tan, Allard, Reichert, Frischling, and Weser
Appellant’s only argument with respect to this rejection is that Weser
does not affect Appellant’s analysis of the first rejection. Appeal Br. 13. As
discussed above, we conclude that the first rejection is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. We reach the same conclusion with respect
to this rejection of claims 8 and 35.
Obviousness Based on Allard, Tan, Reichert, and Weser
Issue
The issue with respect to this rejection is whether a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 28–32, and 35 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
over Allard combined with Tan, Reichert, and Weser.
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

12
The Examiner finds Allard teaches a kit for coloring hair comprising a
lifting composition, a color base composition and a developer composition.
Final Act. 13.
The Examiner finds that the lifting composition of Allard comprises
an oxidizing agent such as ammonia and alkanolamines such as
monoethanolamine. Id.
The Examiner finds that the color based composition of Allard
comprises 5 to 30% by weight water and 1 to 30 percent by weight of an
organic cosolvent. Id. at 14. The Examiner finds that the color base of Allard
may also comprise a pH adjuster such as ammonium hydroxide and
monoethanolamine. Id.
The Examiner finds that Allard teaches the inclusion of a rheology
modifier. Id.
The Examiner finds that Allard teaches that the composition includes
a conditioning agent such poly(quaternary ammonium) polymers. Id.
The Examiner finds that Allard teaches the inclusion of at least one
surfactant such as anionic surfactants. Id. at 15.
The Examiner finds that Allard teaches that the compositions may
include an antioxidant or reducing agent such as ascorbic acid, erythorbic
acid and mixtures thereof. Id.
The Examiner finds Allard teaches the inclusion of vegetable oils. Id.
The Examiner finds Tan teaches the use of a combination of
ammonium hydroxide and an alkanolamine. Id. at 16. The Examiner finds
Tan teaches the inclusion of a hydrogenated vegetable oil. Id.
The Examiner finds Reichert teaches the use of vegetable oils in hair
dye compositions. Id.
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

13
The Examiner finds Weser teaches hair dyes comprising cationic
anthraquinone dyes and fatty acid diesters of alkanediols. Id. at 17.
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
substitute ammonium hydroxide as taught by Tan for the
ammonia basifying/alkalizing agents of Allard because simple
substitution of functionally equivalent elements yields
predictable results, absent evidence to the contrary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the compositions of Allard to further comprise
optionally hydrated (hydrogenated) plant (vegetable) oil
inclusive of jojoba as taught by Reichert in order to impart an
increase in sheen, a pleasing suppleness and an increase in fiber
strength. There would be a reasonable expectation of success
because the compositions of Allard may comprise plant /
vegetable oils. It would have been obvious to include the
hydrogenated oils of Reichert in amounts from 10 to 80 wt% as
taught by Tan because Tan teach this amount is suitable for
including fatty substances inclusive of hydrogenated jojoba oil
in color lifting compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the compositions of Allard to further comprise natural
or synthetic oils inclusive of ester oils of fatty acids or diol
esters as taught by Reichert in order to further increase the
effects of the hydrogenated oil in the composition. There would
be a reasonable expectation of success because the
compositions of Allard may comprise plant oils, fatty acids and
derivatives thereof, and also mixtures of the various
compounds. It would have been obvious to include the ester oils
of fatty acids or diol esters of Reichert in amounts from 10 to
80 wt% as taught by Tan because Tan teach this amount is
suitable for including fatty substances inclusive of esters of
fatty acids (fatty acid ester) / esters of fatty alcohols in color
lifting compositions.
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

14
Id. at 17–18.
Appellant contends that Allard does not teach or suggest replacing a
portion of aqueous ammonia with ethanolamine. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant
contends that one skilled in the art would not use ethanolamine as it is not as
effective as ammonium hydroxide. Id.
Appellant contends that Bailey teaches away from the use of
ethanolamine. Id.
Appellant contends that the claimed compositions produce surprising
better color lift and color deposition. Id. Appellant contends that these
results are unexpected. See id. at 14–15.
Appellant contends that claims 30 and 32 are separately patentable as
Tan does not teach the exclusion of carboxylic or carboxylate surfactants as
required by these claims. Id. at 15.
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, reasoning on scope and
content of the prior art, and conclusions set out in the Final Action and
Answer regarding this rejection. We find the Examiner has established a
prima facie showing that the subject matter of the claims would have been
obvious over Allard combined with Tan, Reichert and Weser to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Appellant has
not produced evidence showing, or persuasively argued, that the Examiner’s
determinations on obviousness are incorrect. Only those arguments made by
Appellant in the Brief have been considered in this Decision. Arguments not
presented in the Brief are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015).
We have identified claim 1 as representative; therefore, all claims, except
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

15
claims 30 and 32, fall with claim 1. We address Appellant’s arguments
below.
Appellant contends that Allard does not teach or suggest substituting
ethanolamine for part of the ammonium hydroxide used in Allard. Appeal
Br. 14. Appellant contends that one skilled in the art would not use
ethanolamine as it is not as effective as ammonium hydroxide. Id.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but are not persuaded that
the rejection is in error. Allard specifically teaches mixtures of ammonia and
alcanolamines. Allard ¶ 119. Tan also teaches a preferred embodiment with
a mixture of an alkanolamine and ammonium hydroxide. Tan ¶ 88.
Appellant contends that Bailey teaches away from the proposed
combination of references. Appeal Br. 14. As discussed above, we do not
find Bailey to teach away from the proposed combination.
Appellant contends that there is evidence of unexpected results
sufficient to demonstrate non-obviousness. See id. at 14–15. For the reasons
discussed above, we do not find the evidence of unexpected results
persuasive as the evidence is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Appellant contends that claims 30 and 32 are separately patentable as
Tan requires the use of carboxylic or carboxylate surfactants and these
surfactants are excluded from claims 30 and 32. Appeal Br. 15. We are not
persuaded by this argument.
The rejection is based on Allard as the primary reference and Allard
does not require the use of these compounds. See Allard ¶¶ 161–179; Ans.
11. The Examiner cites Tan as teaching a mixture of alkanolamines and
ammonium hydroxide as well as the use of vegetable oils. Final Act. 16. The
Examiner does not cite to Tan for teaching the use of surfactants.
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

16
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing we conclude that a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 28–32, and 35 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
over Allard combined with Tan, Reichert and Weser.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection are affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 28, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Allard, Reichert
and Frischling is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 8 and 15 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Allard, Reichert, Frischling, and
Weser is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 28–32, and
35 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Allard in
view of Tan, Reichert, and Weser is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 11, 14,
16, 17, 19,
21, 26, 28,
29
103 Tan, Allard,
Reichert,
Frischling
1, 5, 11, 14,
16, 17, 19,
21, 26, 28,
29

8, 15 103 Tan, Allard,
Reichert,
Frischling, Weser
8, 15
Appeal 2021-001632
Application 15/392,899

17
1, 5, 8, 11,
14, 16, 17,
19, 21, 26,
28–32, 35
103 Allard, Tan,
Reichert, Weser
1, 5, 8, 11,
14, 16, 17,
19, 21, 26,
28–32, 35

Overall
Outcome
1, 5, 8, 11,
14, 15, 16,
17, 19, 21,
26, 28–32,
35

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED