- “Claim 1 of the main request defines a cosmetic water-based ink in form of a suspension comprising ...”
- “Inspection of samples of the compositions used in these comparative tests during the oral proceedings held before the Board on 26 April 2021 confirmed that the composition of "Versuch 4" showed similar low pigment settlement as the composition of "Versuch 3" and that when drawing multiple lines on the back of a hand without reloading the used applicator the composition of "Versuch 3" showed a slightly increased fading tendency in comparison with the composition "Versuch 4".
- In view of the presented evidence the Board is satisfied that the use of the particular non-ionic surfactant [having feature X] is associated with the advantage of reduced fading upon application of a single loading. The problem to be solved may therefore be seen in the provision of an cosmetic water-based ink in form of a suspension with such improved resistance to fading.”
2.3 Problem to be solved
With the submission of 15 December 2020 the appellant provided results of comparative tests involving a composition according to example 3 of document D5 ("Versuch 1"), a similar composition which differed in the additional presence of sodium polyacrylate as thickener ("Versuch 3") and a similar composition comprising the sodium polyacrylate as thickener and in which the polyoxyethylene laurylether (21 EO, HLB 19) of example 3 of document D5 is replaced by PEG-6 caprylic/Caprylic glycerides ("Versuch 4"). The composition of "Versuch 4" represents a composition as defined in the claims of the main request.
The results presented on page 8 (see diagram and photo) of the appellant's submission of 15 December 2020 indicate that the composition of "Versuch 1" shows lower viscosity and faster pigment settlement associated with cake-formation in comparison with a composition which additionally included sodium polyacrylate as thickener "Versuch 3".
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2021/06/t-187217-inspection-of-samples.html
