Appeal No. 95-2179
Application No. 07/994,536
claim over the applied reference, (3) the proposed
modification of the applied reference
necessary to arrive at the claimed subject matter, and (4) an
explanation why a person having ordinary skill in the art at
the
time the invention was made would have been motivated to make
the proposed modification. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 706.02(j) (7th ed., July 1998), setting
forth the contents of a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. The
examiner has not followed that format here.
According to the examiner, Georgalas discloses each
component of appellants' wound dressing composition but does
not disclose appellants' percentages of ingredients. As
stated by the examiner,
Georgalas does not disclose applicant's [sic,
applicants'] percentages of ingredients, however,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to experiment with varying ratios of
ingredients in order to optimize expected beneficial
results. [Examiner's Answer, page 3, lines 4 through
7].
Manifestly, that statement of rejection does not comply with
MPEP § 706.02(j). The statement does not explain how a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led from
"here to there," i.e., from the skin treatment composition and
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007