Ex parte GAIL S. BAZZANO - Page 2




          Appeal No. 95-4713                                                          
          Application 07/856,157                                                      


               Claim 1, which is illustrative of the subject matter on                
          appeal, reads as follows:                                                   
               1.  A stable, aqueous retinoid composition for topical                 
          application to the skin with slow release of the retinoid and               
          minimal irritancy to the skin, comprising:                                  
                    (a) an aqueous medium such that the composition is at             
          least about 40 weight percent water;                                        
                    (b) an amount of retinoid effective for treatment of a            
          skin condition;                                                             
                    (c) an amount of a high molecular weight polyacrylic              
          acid gelling agent neutralized to a pH of about 3 to 7 effective            
          to form a gel and hold said retinoid for slow release in said               
          aqueous medium; and                                                         
                    (d) an amount of antioxidant effective to retard                  
          decomposition of said retinoid in said aqueous medium.                      

                                   THE REFERENCES                                     

               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          

          Marks               4,247,547      Jan. 27, 1981                            
          Vishnupad et al.    4,950,475      Aug. 21, 1990                            
          (Vishnupad)                                                                 

                                      THE ISSUE                                       

               The issue presented for review is whether the examiner erred           
          in rejecting claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 16 under 35 USC               
           103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Vishnupad            


                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007