Ex Parte INGRAM et al - Page 3


                 Appeal No.  2003-0443                                                           Page 3                   
                 Application No.   09/465,653                                                                             
                         [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the                          
                         time of the invention to have modified the composition in Arora by                               
                         replacing methyl salicylate with turpentine oil, as suggested by                                 
                         Deckner et al. and Went et al., because of the expectation of                                    
                         successfully producing a similar analgesic composition with                                      
                         equivalent effectiveness and skin penetration without adverse                                    
                         effects.                                                                                         
                         As we understand the examiner’s rejection, since Deckner and Went                                
                 disclose the equivalent function of turpentine, eucalyptus oil and methyl                                
                 salicylate2, it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute turpentine for                         
                 methyl salicylate in the composition disclosed by Arora.  Notwithstanding the                            
                 examiner’s arguments, the evidence relied upon by the examiner also leads a                              
                 person of ordinary skill in the art to a composition comprising methyl salicylate,                       
                 turpentine and alcohol, which is not the claimed invention.  While the examiner                          
                 suggests that turpentine, eucalyptus oil and methyl salicylate are equivalent in                         
                 function, the examiner failed to provide any evidence as to why a person of                              
                 ordinary skill in the art would have modified the Arora composition by substituting                      
                 turpentine for methyl salicylate, and not for eucalyptus oil.                                            
                         Prima facie obviousness based on a combination of references requires                            
                 that the prior art provide “a reason, suggestion, or motivation to lead an inventor                      
                 to combine those references.”  Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes                                      
                 Plastics Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996).                                
                         [E]vidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine may                               
                         flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one                              
                         of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the                          
                         problem to be solved. . . .  The range of sources available, however,                            
                         does not diminish the requirement for actual evidence.  That is, the                             
                         showing must be clear and particular.                                                            

                                                                                                                          
                 2 Methyl salicylate is also known as wintergreen oil.  See Arora, column 1, line 48.                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007