Appeal No. 1996-1783
Application No. 08/195,025
Accordingly, the examiner applies Gaonkar for the teaching of
stabilizing emulsions by using various polysaccharide gums,
including gellan gum or propylene glycol alginate (Answer,
pages 5-6). Appellants argue that Gaonkar fails to teach the
stabilization of vesicles and only relates to water/oil/water
and oil/water/oil emulsions (Brief, page 18).
With regard to the proper combination of references, our
reviewing court has stated:3
When a rejection depends on a combination of prior
art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion,
or motivation to combine the references. [Citation
omitted]. Although the suggestion to combine
references may flow from the nature of the problem,
[citation omitted], the suggestion more often comes
from the teachings of the pertinent references,
[citation omitted], or from the ordinary
knowledge of those skilled in the art that certain
references are of special importance in a particular field,
[citations omitted]. . . .
On this record, we determine that the examiner has not
established any reason, suggestion, or motivation for
combining the teachings of Gaonkar, directed to the
stabilization of multiple emulsions, with the teachings of the
remaining references which are directed to vesicle (liposome)
3In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355-56, 47 USPQ2d 1453,
1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007