Appeal No. 2003-1424 Page 3
Application No. 09/961,623
combine the benefits of urea and benzoyl peroxide and yet achieve a stable
formulation. See page 1.
Discussion
Claim 12, the broadest claim on appeal, is directed to a composition
comprising benzoyl peroxide (0.5 to 20 weight percent), urea (0.1 to 40 weight
percent), and a dermatologically acceptable carrier. The examiner rejected all of
the claims as obvious in view of Klein and Gennaro. The examiner cited Klein as
teaching an anti-acne composition comprising, among other things, 5% benzoyl
peroxide, and cited Gennaro for its teaching that urea is a mild keratolytic agent
used in a concentration of 2-20%. See the Examiner’s Answer, page 4. The
examiner acknowledged that, as the basis of an obviousness rejection, Klein and
Gennaro leave something to be desired:
The references do not expressly teach that urea is useful in treating
acne. The references do not expressly teach that the pH of the
composition is in a range of about 4 to about 9. The references do
not expressly teach that the topical composition comprises an
additional keratolytic agent.
Examiner’s Answer, page 5.1
In the examiner’s view, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to add urea to Klein’s anti-acne composition, because urea
is a keratolytic agent and “keratolytic agents are known to be useful in treating
acne.” The examiner concluded that “[c]ombining two agents, which are known
1 The examiner’s last point—regarding an additional keratolytic agent—is implicated only by
dependent claim 6 and need not concern us here.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007