Ex parte KLOKKERS-BETHKE et al. - Page 8

          Appeal No. 94-3564                                                          
          Application 07/890,314                                                      

          ingredient”; “the high alcohol concentration results in local               
          hyperaemia, which also leads to a better and quicker                        
          resorption”).  In contrast, each independent claim on appeal                
          recites a hydrophilic aqueous pump spray composition containing             
          24.50 to 24.85 weight/% of ethanol.  We disagree that a person              
          having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify                 
          Aouda’s nitroglycerin spray by adding 32.00 weight/% of                     
          propyleneglycol from the range set forth by Nagy, but refrain               
          from using 51 to 90% by weight ethyl alcohol which Nagy requires.           
          As stated in In re Kamm, 452 F.2d 1052, 1057, 172 USPQ 298, 301-            
          302 (CCPA 1972), quoting from In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241,             
          147 USPQ 391, 393 (CCPA 1965),                                              

                    It is impermissible within the framework of                       
                    section 103 to pick and choose from any one                       
                    reference [Nagy] only so much of it as will                       
                    support a given position, to the exclusion of                     
                    other parts necessary to the full apprecia-                       
                    ion of what such reference fairly suggests to                     
                    one of ordinary skill in the art.                                 

          We believe that this has been done here.  In our judgment,                  
          therefore, the combined disclosures of Aouda and Nagy are                   
          insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness of the claims           
          on appeal.                                                                  
               Without the benefit of appellants’ disclosure as a                     


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007