Appeal No. 1996-1072
Application 08/132,289
polymer to prolong the presence of an insect repellant in a
sunscreen (answer, pages 5-6). This argument is not
persuasive because, first, the examiner has not established
that the applied references would have provided one of
ordinary skill in the art with 1) a motivation to use the GAF
polymer to slow the release of an insect repellant, and 2)
reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See In re
Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680
(Fed. Cir. 1988). Second, the examiner has not explained why
Gallagher, Flashinski and GAF would have fairly suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art, including an insect
repellant in a sunscreen.
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
established that the combined teachings of Gallagher,
Flashinski and GAF provide a factual basis which is sufficient
for supporting a conclusion of obviousness of the invention
recited in any of appellants’ claims. We therefore reverse
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over these references.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007