Ex Parte Bhagwat et al - Page 4


                Appeal No. 2003-1424                                                  Page 4                  
                Application No. 09/961,623                                                                    

                to be useful to treat acne individually, into a single composition and method                 
                useful for the very same purpose is prima facie obvious.”  Id.                                
                      Appellants dispute the examiner’s basis for combining the references.                   
                See the Reply Brief, pages 2-3:                                                               
                      [T]he Examiner makes a general statement that all keratolytic                           
                      agents are known to be useful in treating acne.  However, in the                        
                      first full paragraph describing keratolytic agents in general,                          
                      Gennaro does not mention acne as a specific primary treatment for                       
                      such an agent.  Although benzoyl peroxide . . . [is] stated to be                       
                      possibly useful for treating acne, the Examiner has not                                 
                      demonstrated that all keratolytic agents are useful for treating acne.                  
                      In fact, there is no indication in Gennaro that urea can be used for                    
                      treating acne.  Notably, it is stated to be used to treat dry skin.                     
                      Appellants also argue that the references do not provide a reasonable                   
                expectation of success.  See the Appeal Brief, page 8:                                        
                      The success to be expected here is whether a single stable                              
                      combination providing compatibility for the two active ingredients                      
                      benzoyl peroxide and urea could actually have been made                                 
                      providing treatment of dermatological disorders.  There is no                           
                      expectation of success that a single composition could be made                          
                      which would be stable with these two ingredients.  In fact, Klein et                    
                      al. would teach away from such a single stable composition.                             
                      The examiner bears the initial burden of showing unpatentability.  See,                 
                e.g., In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).              
                A prima facie case of obviousness requires evidence that the prior art disclosed              
                or suggested all of the elements of the claimed invention, and that those skilled in          
                the art would have been motivated to combine those elements with a reasonable                 
                expectation of success.  See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494,                 
                496 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the                      
                patentability of the claim against the prior art.”); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493,          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007