Appeal No. 95-4890
Application 08/035,002
All of the appealed claims, including claim 11, stand
rejected under 35 USC § 103 based on the combined disclosures
of Yanagibashi and Nichols. However, the examiner does not
present a cogent explanation why the method of treating burns
or wounds
defined in claim 11, would have been obvious from a
consideration of Yanagibashi and Nichols.
In setting forth the rejection under 35 USC § 103, the
examiner states that
it would be [sic, would have been] obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention, motivated by a
reasonable expectation of success, to
obtain the [claimed] o/w emulsion because
JP-85/034923 [Yanagibashi] discloses water,
oil, drug, a protein (gelatin), alginate,
etc.; the motivation to substitute one
protein with another (gelatin for collagen)
is derived from Nichols (column 1, lines
35-44, Examples III and V).
See the Examiner’s Answer, paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4.
On its face, that statement of obviousness is directed to the
present reasons supporting the separate patentability of any claim. This is factually
incorrect.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007