Ex parte HAYNES et al. - Page 9




          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