Appeal No. 94-4260
Application 07/849,191
The appellant urges that the method disclosed in Example
1 would have enabled one skilled in the art “to make and use”
the method described in claim 15. According to the appellant,
since the “invention stimulates hair growth, the papilla are
being activated to resume hair growth.” Request for
Reconsideration, p. 8. The appellant relies on the World Book
Encyclopedia to support her position. We have carefully
considered all the points raised, but find the appellant’s
arguments flawed on several accounts.
First, the appellant has failed to establish a
correlation between the application of BAG BALM and the®
“offsetting the effects of lower levels of male hormone being
supplied by the arteries to the papilla of scalp hair
follicles.” Even if we assume, arguendo, that BAG BALM®
reaches the papilla, there is no evidence of record that the
resultant hair growth is due to (i) the stimulation of the
papilla, and (ii) the offsetting the effects of lower male
hormone which is supplied by arteries to the papilla, and not
due to some other mechanism(s). The specification merely
“surmises” as to the mechanism by which BAG BALM acts and, in®
fact, suggests that alternative mechanisms might be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007