Appeal No. 94-3564
Application 07/890,314
Each independent claim on appeal recites a container having
a hydrophilic aqueous pump spray composition therein, where the
composition comprises four ingredients in specified amounts. The
composition comprises 0.15 to 0.50 weight/% of nitroglycerin,
24.50 to 24.85 weight/% of ethanol, 32.00 weight/% of 1,2-
propyleneglycol and 43.00 weight/% of purified water and has a pH
of 3 to 6. In our judgment, the prior art references relied on
by the examiner are insufficient to support a conclusion of
obviousness of claims containing those limitations.
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to add
propyleneglycol, per the teachings of Silson and Nagy, to the
nitroglycerin spray of Aouda. According to the examiner, that
proposed modification of Aouda would have led a person having
ordinary skill in the art to the subject matter sought to be
patented in claims 16 through 24. We disagree. 3
First, each claim on appeal recites a hydrophilic aqueous
pump spray composition containing 32.00 weight/% of 1,2-
propyleneglycol. The examiner has not established that Silson
discloses that amount of propyleneglycol. Having reviewed the
3 The examiner sets forth the statement of rejection in the Office Action
mailed July 21, 1992 (Paper No. 10), pages 2 and 3. In the Examiner’s Answer,
page 3, first paragraph, the examiner states that “[t]he claims are rejected for
the reasons of record as stated in paragraph 16 of the office action mailed July
21, 1992".
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007