Appeal 2007-0315
Application 10/374,300
re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)” (Answer 8-9). See
also In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA 1972) (“All
the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated . . . a reference is not limited
to the disclosure of specific working examples.”)
We also are not persuaded that because Jokura erred in describing the
structure of malonic acid, the skilled worker would have overlooked its
disclosure (Br. 12). Malonic acid was correctly characterized by Jokura as a
dicarboxylic acid. Because its structure is well known, the skilled worker
would not have been misled by Jokura’s incorrectly describing it to contain
CH3, rather than CH2. This would have been recognized by the skilled
worker as an obvious error.
Summary
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over Jokura. Claims 2-9 fall with claim 1 because they were not
separately argued.
Obviousness over Cole in view of Crandall
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Cole in view of Crandall.
The Examiner finds that Cole teaches a composition for treating fine
lines and wrinkles comprising a neutralized ammonium salt of a
dermatologically active acid in a carrier and having a pH of about 5-6
(Answer 6). The Examiner states that Cole does not describe malonic acid
as the dermatologically active acid as recited in instant claim 1. However,
the Examiner finds that “Cole teaches any dermatologically active acid is
suitable with a preference for alpha hydroxy acids in particular glycolic
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013