L'OREAL

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 18, 2021

2020006575 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 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.
14/915,517 02/29/2016 Marie DEVIE 467898US99PCT 4928
22850 7590 05/18/2021
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
SOROUSH, ALI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2021 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARIE DEVIE1
____________

Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JOHN G. NEW, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies L’Oréal of Paris, France as the real
party-in-interest. App. Br. 1.

Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

2

SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–6, 8–17, 21, and 24–29.
Specifically, claims 1–6, 8–12, 16, and 24–28 stand rejected as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Dawson et
al. (WO 2007/090554 A1, August 16, 2007) (“Dawson”), Lorant (US
5,952,395, September 14, 1999) (“Lorant”) and Snyder et al. (US
2003/0165454 A1, September 4, 2003) (“Snyder”).2
Claims 13–15 and 29 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over the combination of Dawson, Lorant, Snyder,
Knappe et al. (US 2012/0201773 A1, August 9, 2012) (“Knappe”), alone or
in further combination with Wilcox et al. (US 5,863,544, January 26, 1999)
(“Wilcox”).
A hearing was held in this appeal on April 8, 2021.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

2 The Examiner also rejected claims 17 and 21, however no grounds for
rejection are specified at the summary on page 3 of the Final Office Action
of July 9, 2019 (although they are subsequently mentioned at page 7 as
standing rejected under Dawson, Lorant and Snyder). Appellant does not
address these claims in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief, nor does the
Examiner in the Answer. Because claims 17 and 21 depend, directly or
indirectly, from claim 1, we include them in our analysis and conclusion
with respect to claim 1.
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

3

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a cosmetic composition
comprising, in a physiologically acceptable aqueous medium, a
polysaccharide modified with hydrophobic chains; a polymer comprising
sulfonic groups; a (meth)acrylic acid polymer, which is preferably
crosslinked, and/or an oxyethylenated silicone surfactant. Spec. Abstr.

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Independent claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and
recites:
Claim 1 A composition, comprising, in a physiologically
acceptable aqueous medium:

i) at least one polymer comprising a sulfonic group;

ii) at least one polysaccharide modified with
hydrophobic chains;

iii) at least one (meth)acrylic acid polymer, silicone
surfactant which is an oxyethylenated
polydimethylsiloxane, or both, and

at least one compound selected from the group consisting
of pigments, nacres, fillers, and mixtures thereof,

wherein the at least one polysaccharide modified with
hydrophobic chains is present in the composition in an amount
of from 0.1 % to 5% by weight relative to the total weight of the
composition, and

wherein the composition does not phase separate after two
months at 25°C.

App. Br. 11.
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

4

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We agree with, or adopt, the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and
conclusion that the claims are obvious over the combined cited prior art. We
address below the arguments raised by Appellant.

Issue 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because the combined cited
prior art does not provide a person of ordinary skill in the art with sufficient
guidance to arrive at the invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
App. Br. 6–7.

Analysis
The Examiner finds that Dawson teaches a shampoo formulation
comprising 0.5% inulin lauryl carbamate (a modified polysaccharide
(emulsifier)), 0.4% Carbopol 980 (a (meth)acrylic acid polymer), and water.
Final Act. 4 (citing Dawson 20, 25 Table). The Examiner also finds that
Dawson teaches that its composition is intended for application to hair (i.e.,
keratin material). Id. (citing Dawson 26).
The Examiner notes that Dawson neither teaches nor suggests that the
shampoo composition comprises at least one polymer comprising a sulfonic
group. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Dawson also fails to teach or
suggest that the composition comprises a pigment. Id.
The Examiner finds that Lorant teaches emulsions used for cosmetic
and dermatological applications that are stabilized with a cross-linked
polymer of 2-acrylamide-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid. Final Act. 4 (citing
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

5

Dawson Title). The Examiner finds that a preferred composition of Dawson
comprising 1% cross-linked polymer of 2-acrylamide-2-methylpropane
sulfonic acid is stable and homogeneous (no phase separation) after 2
months at 25oC and 45oC. Id. (citing Lorant col. 11, ll. 40–43).
The Examiner finds that Snyder teaches a hair conditioning
composition comprising visible particles to impart an aesthetic benefit to an
otherwise transparent composition and that may be pigments. Final Act. 4
(citing Snyder ¶¶ 238, 244). The Examiner finds that the compositions are
stable and may contain a wide variety of active substances and adjuvants
without disturbing their stability. Id. (citing Snyder Abstr.). The Examiner
finds that Snyder teaches that its compositions can further comprise at least
one additive such as fillers and coloring agents. Id. (citing Snyder claims 1,
35).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to add 1% cross-linked polymer of 2-
acrylamide-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid to the compositions of Dawson
and with a reasonable expectation of success. Final Act. 4. The Examiner
reasons that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to
improve the stability of the composition, as expressly taught by Lorant. Id.
The Examiner further concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a pigment to the combined
composition of Dawson and Lorant with a reasonable expectation of success,
and that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to
provide the composition with an aesthetic benefit. Id.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Snyder cures the
deficiency that caused the Examiner to withdraw the rejection of the claims
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

6

over Dawson, Lorant, and Wilcox, and Knappe. App. Br. 5–6. Specifically,
Appellant points to the Examiner’s reliance upon paragraphs [0238] and
[0244] of Snyder, which Appellant contends teach that “visible particles”
may optionally be added to Snyder's compositions. Id. at 6 (citing Snyder ¶
238). Appellant contends that, if pigments were to be chosen in accordance
with Snyder’s disclosure in paragraph [0244], they would need to be
“encompassed” within the visible particles. Id. Therefore, argues
Appellant, and contrary to the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been obvious to “add a pigment to the composition of Dawson et al. and
Lorant and have a reasonable expectation of success,” a person of ordinary
skill in the art would, at most, have been motivated to optionally add visible
particles which may optionally have encompassed pigments chosen from a
laundry list of other materials. Id.
Appellant contends that such an optional inclusion of particles
possibly encompassing pigments would not have provided reasonable
guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the present invention,
including all of the required constituents in pulverulent-containing
compositions with a reasonable expectation of producing compositions
having the required stability. App. Br. 6–7. To the contrary, Appellant
asserts, a skilled artisan would not have had any reasonable expectation of
success in adding ordinary pigments, based on the disclosure in Snyder. Id.
at 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant and
Examiner agree that the combination of Dawson, Lorant, Snyder, and
Knappe does not teach the limitation of independent claims 1 and 29 reciting
“at least one compound selected from the group consisting of pigments,
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

7

nacres, fillers, and mixtures thereof.” See Final Act. 4, App. Br. 5–6.
Appellant points to the Specification’s disclosure that “the presence of
pulverulent materials such as pigments or fillers, and/or the presence of
active agents, has the drawback of destabilizing the compositions, in
particular emulsions, and/or of significantly modifying the viscosity of the
phase which comprises them,” and asserts that “the problem which the
present invention helps address is instability of compositions containing
pulverulent materials.” App. Br. 4 (quoting Spec. 2)(emphasis omitted).
Snyder is directed to hair conditioning compositions comprising:
(1) a thickening agent selected from the group consisting of an
acrylic acid/alkyl acrylate copolymer, an acrylates
copolymer, and a crosslinked polymer;

(2) a frizz control agent selected from the group consisting of
PEG-modified glycerides, PEG-modified glyceryl fatty acid
esters, dimethicone copolyols, and mixtures thereof; and

(3) an aqueous carrier.

Snyder Abstr. The Examiner particularly relies upon Snyder as teaching the
optional addition of a “visible particle,” which is defined as:
[A] particle which can be distinctively detected as an individual
particle by the naked eye when comprised in the present
composition, and which is stable in the present composition. The
visible particle can be of any size, shape, or color, according to
the desired characteristic of the product, so long as it is
distinctively detected as an individual particle by the naked eye.

Id. at ¶ 238 (emphasis added). Snyder further teaches that:
The visible particle herein may encompass, contain, or be filled
with an encompassed material. Such encompassed material can
be water soluble or water insoluble, and comprise components
such as: vitamins, amino acids, proteins and protein derivatives,
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

8

herbal extracts, pigments, dyes, antimicrobial agents, chelating
agents, UV absorbers, optical brighteners, silicone compounds,
perfumes, humectants which are generally water soluble,
additional conditioning agents which are generally water
insoluble, and mixtures thereof.

Id. at ¶ 244 (emphasis added). Snyder thus expressly teaches, inter alia, the
limitation of independent claims 1 and 29 reciting “at least one compound
selected from the group consisting of pigments, nacres, fillers, and mixtures
thereof.”
We agree with Appellant that the employment of pigments as “visible
particles,” as taught by Snyder, is an optional constituent of its hair
conditioning compositions. Nevertheless, the fact that a constituent is taught
as being optional does not preclude us from considering it in our
obviousness analysis. See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.,
874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding that “all disclosures of the prior
art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered”) (quoting In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); see also In re Mills, 470 F.2d
649, 651 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (holding that “a reference is not limited to the
disclosure of specific working examples”)). Even though the pigments may
be optional, Snyder expressly teaches that they may be included in hair
products.
The Examiner finds that Lorant teaches emulsions used for cosmetic
and dermatological applications that are stabilized with a cross-linked
polymer of 2-acrylamide-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid. See Final Act. 4.
Lorant teaches:
The inventor has surprisingly discovered a new class of
thickening or gelling polymers which make it possible to produce
emulsions obtained by phase inversion, which are stable in all
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

9

the viscosity ranges, for example ranging from 10 to 30,000 cP,
with a wide variety of possible emulsifiers and regardless of the
oils employed. This new class makes it possible to solve all the
problems which are specific to this type of emulsion and which
have been referred to above.

The inventor has also discovered that this new class of thickening
or gelling polymers makes it possible to produce ultrafine
emulsions which can contain a wide range of cosmetic active
substances and adjuvants without disturbing their stability.

Lorant col. 2, ll. 36–48 (emphasis added). Lorant also teaches the addition
of other constituents:
A composition according to claim 1, wherein said composition
additionally contains at least one additive selected from aqueous
or lipophilic conventional gelling agents or thickeners,
hydrophilic or lipophilic active substances, preserving agents,
antioxidants, perfumes, hydrating agents, emollients,
sequestrants, surfactants, polymers, alkalifying or acidifying
agents, fillers, agents against free radicals, ceramides,
sunscreens, insect repellents, slimming agents, coloring agents,
bactericides and agents against dandruff.

Id. at claim 35 (emphasis added). In short, Lorant teaches emulsions
stabilized with a cross-linked polymer of 2-acrylamide-2-methylpropane
sulfonic acid, as recited in the claims. Moreover, Lorant teaches that its
stabilized emulsions remains stable when additional constituents are added,
including coloring agents.
We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding “at least one
compound selected from the group consisting of pigments, nacres, fillers,
and mixtures thereof,” as recited in the independent claims and as taught by
Snyder, to the stabilized emulsion of the combined teachings of Dawson and
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

10

Lorant, particularly given the latter reference’s teachings concerning the
stability of the emulsion when stabilized by a cross-linked polymer of 2-
acrylamide-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid. Furthermore, we conclude that a
skilled artisan would have been motivated to add pigment, in the form of
visible particles, to the stabilized emulsion of Dawson and Lorant so as to
obtain the “highly suitable aesthetic benefit” taught by Snyder. See Snyder ¶
238. We are consequently not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.

Issue 2
Appellant argues the Examiner erred by misinterpreting the teachings
of Lorant. App. Br. 7.

Analysis
Appellant points to Lorant’s teaching that:
In particular, the acrylate/acrylic acid copolymers such as the
product SALCARE SC 97 from Allied Colloids destabilize the
emulsions obtained by phase inversion and acrylamide/2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid copolymers such as
the SEPIGEL products from Seppic give rise to heterogeneous
emulsions and creaming phenomena. Cellulose derivatives and
polyacrylics of the CARBOPOL type from Goodrich impart a
sticky feel and do not improve the emulsions obtained by phase
inversion which present stability problems.

App. Br. 7 (quoting Lorant col. 2, ll. 26–35). Appellant argues that, in the
Advisory Action of January 6, 2020 (the “Advisory Action”), the Examiner
omitted the last four words of Lorant’s paragraph (i.e., “which present
stability problems”) to allow for the conclusion that “it is clear that Lorant
does not believe that Carbopol destabilizes the emulsion….” Id. at 7–8
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

11

(quoting Adv. Act. 2). According to Appellant, this interpretation and re-
writing of different sentences within the same paragraph of Lorant (a
paragraph allegedly detailing why typical copolymers are unacceptable to
Lorant) is error on the Examiner’s part. Id. at 8.
Appellant argues that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Lorant
does not indicate that Carbopol polymers are neutral, or that they merely fail
to improve compositions, but rather teaches that Carbopol polymers result in
unacceptable compositions. App. Br. 8. Appellant points out that Lorant
teaches, in column 1, that fluid ultrafine emulsions can be made, and then
discusses gelling of such fluid emulsions. Id. (citing Lorant col. 2, ll. 15–35
(including the passage quoted supra)).
Appellant asserts that Lorant teaches that although, theoretically, any
gelling agent should be usable in ultrafine emulsions to improve stability of
these very fluid emulsions, such theoretical beliefs are not actually observed.
App. Br. 9. Appellant points to Lorant’s teaching that, “[u]nfortunately, the
gelling agents commonly employed in cosmetics are, for the most part, poor
in performance and some are incompatible with this type of emulsion.” Id.
(quoting Lorant col. 2, ll. 20–22). Appellant therefore contends that Lorant
does not state that gelling agents like Carbopol are acceptable, non-preferred
embodiments, but rather, expressly teaches that gelling agents such as
Carbopol are poor in performance in, and/or incompatible with, Lorant’s
fluid compositions. Id. Appellant argues that teaching would lead a person
of ordinary skill in the art away from believing that Carbopol polymers are
useful in Lorant’s compositions, and from wanting to combine Lorant’s
AMPS polymers with Carbopol polymers. Id.
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

12

Appellant notes that, during prosecution, the Examiner focused on
Example 2 of Dawson. App. Br. 9. However, Appellant contends, a skilled
artisan, seeking to combine the teachings of Dawson and Lorant, would have
been motivated to substitute Lorant’s AMPs polymer for Carbopol in
Dawson’s Example 2. Id. Appellant reasons that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to substitute AMPs polymer for
Carbopol, thereby leading away from the present invention. Id.
The Examiner responds that Lorant, in the passage quoted supra,
distinguishes Carbopol from the other polymers by indicating that the
inferiority of these polymers are that they “impart a sticky feel and do not
improve the emulsions.” Ans. 5 (citing Lorant col. 2, ll. 33–34). The
Examiner therefore finds that Lorant does not believe that Carbopol
destabilizes the emulsion nor renders it heterogeneous, which is the opposite
of the type of emulsion Lorant seeks to create. Id. Were that the case, the
Examiner finds, Lorant would have used the same language to describe
Carbopol that it used to describe Salcare and/or Sepigel polymers. Id. The
Examiner finds that Lorant does not teach that the addition of, or
combination with, Carbopol would render the composition destabilized or
heterogeneous, but only that it would not help improve the emulsion. Id.
The Examiner thus finds that Lorant teaches that the stability of an
emulsion that comprises Carbopol would be independent of the polymer but
only dependent upon the AMPS polymer. Id. The Examiner concludes that
a skilled artisan would read this citation and understand that Carbopol is a
non-preferred polymer in such compositions, but would not read it as a
teaching away as would be the case with Salcare and/or Sepigel. Id.
To recapitulate, the disputed passage of Lorant states:
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

13

In particular, the acrylate/acrylic acid copolymers such as the
product SALCARE SC 97 from Allied Colloids destabilize the
emulsions obtained by phase inversion and acrylamide/2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid copolymers such as
the SEPIGEL products from Seppic give rise to heterogeneous
emulsions and creaming phenomena. Cellulose derivatives and
polyacrylics of the CARBOPOL type from Goodrich impart a
sticky feel and do not improve the emulsions obtained by phase
inversion which present stability problems.

Lorant col. 2, ll. 26–35. We agree with both Appellant and the Examiner
that this passage teaches that acrylate/acrylic acid copolymers, such as
SALCARE SC 97, destabilize emulsions obtained by phase inversion, and
that acrylamide/2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid copolymers
such as SEPIGEL give rise to heterogeneous emulsions and creaming
phenomena.
Lorant is directed to “ultrafine oil-in-water emulsion[s]” that “may be
obtained according to an emulsifying technique using phase inversion.”
Lorant Abstr. These emulsions “are stable in all viscosity ranges with a
large variety of possible emulsifiers and whatever oils are employed …
[and] can contain a large variety of cosmetic active substances and adjuvants
without disturbing their stability.” Id. Consequently, compounds such as
SALCARE and SEPIGEL which give rise to destabilized or heterogeneous
emulsions are therefore undesirable in this instance.
With respect to cellulose derivatives and polyacrylics such as
Carbopol, Lorant teaches that these “impart a sticky feel and do not improve
the emulsions obtained by phase inversion which present stability
problems.” Lorant col. 2, ll. 31–35. Lorant thus teaches that Carbopol
imparts a (presumably) unpleasant “sticky” feel and does not improve the
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

14

properties of emulsions obtained by phase inversion, which possess stability
problems. Id. Lorant thus disfavors the use of Carbopol in its compositions
because it (1) may be unpleasant (“sticky”), and (2) does not improve the
properties of emulsions produced by phase inversion.
Dawson is directed to “[a] hair treatment composition comprising: a) a
hydrophobic conditioning oil; and b) a hydrophobic polysaccharide
comprising fructose units.” Dawson Abstr. Dawson also teaches “a method
of manufacture of a hair treatment composition described above in which the
hydrophobic conditioning oil and the hydrophobic polysaccharide are pre-
mixed to form an aqueous emulsion, prior to addition to the composition.”
Id. at 2.
Further, Dawson teaches that “[t]he silicones may be added to the
composition as a fluid and subsequently emulsified, but preferably are added
as preformed emulsions. More preferably, the silicone emulsions
additionally comprise the hydrophobic polysaccharide, such as Inutec SP1
(inulin lauryl carbamate), prior to addition to the remainder of the product.”
Dawson 3, 7. Importantly, Dawson does not teach that its emulsion-
containing compositions are synthesized via a phase inversion process.
Dawson expressly teaches the inclusion of Carbopol as a suspending
agent in its compositions. Specifically, Dawson teaches:
Optionally, the compositions according to the invention further
comprise from 0.1 to 10 percent by weight, preferably from 0.6%
to 6%, of a suspending agent. Suitable suspending agents are
selected from polyacrylic acids…. Polyacrylic acid is available
commercially as Carbopol 420, Carbopol 488 or Carbopol 493.
Polymers of acrylic acid cross-linked with a polyfunctional agent
may also be used, they are available commercially as Carbopol
910, Carbopol 934, Carbopol 940, Carbopol 941 and Carbopol
980.
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

15

Dawson 19–20. Furthermore, Dawson expressly includes Carbopol 980 as
an acrylic acid polymer in its exemplary embodiments. See Dawson Tables
at 22, 25, 27).
The composition of Appellant’s claim 1 comprises, in relevant part:
(1) at least one polymer comprising a sulfonic group; (2) at least one
polysaccharide modified with hydrophobic chains; (3) at least one
(meth)acrylic acid polymer, silicone surfactant which is an oxyethylenated
polydimethylsiloxane, or both. The Examiner finds that Dawson teaches
constituents (2) (inulin lauryl carbamate) and (3) (Carbopol 980) and that
Lorant teaches the use of (1) (i.e., poly(2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropanesulphonic acid) polymer), which acts as a stabilizing agent.
See Final Act. 4. The Examiner reasons that a person of skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dawson and Lorant,
so as to improve the stability of the compositions taught by Dawson. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Lorant teaches
away from combining the stabilizing agent poly(2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropanesulphonic acid) polymer with the constituents of the
compositions taught by Dawson. We agree with Appellant that Lorant
discourages the use of Carbopol in its own compositions, not least because
Carbopol does not improve the instability-prone issues observed in
emulsions produced by phase inversion methods. However, Dawson does
not teach that phase inversion methods are employed in the synthesis of its
compositions, nor has Appellant adduced any evidence that the compositions
of Dawson inherently require such methods. Therefore, although Lorant
may teach away from the use of Carbopol in emulsions produced by phase
Appeal 2020-006575
Application 14/915,517

16

inversion, there is no evidence that the use of Carbopol in the compositions
of Dawson (as Dawson expressly teaches) would suffer any such problems,
because there is no evidence to suggest that Dawson’s emulsions are
produced via phase inversion.
To summarize, although Lorant may teach away from using Carbopol
in its own phase-inverted emulsions, there is no evidence before us that this
teaching away is relevant to stabilizing the non-phase-inverted emulsions
taught by Dawson, or to the compositions taught therein. We are therefore
not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, and we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–6, 8–17, 21, and 24–29 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–12, 16,
17, 21, 24–28
103 Dawson, Lorant,
Snyder
1–6, 8–12,
16, 17, 21,
24–28

13–15, 29 103 Dawson, Lorant,
Snyder, Knappe,
Wilcox
13–15, 29
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–17,
21, 24–29