Appeal No. 1995-4903
Application No. 07/926,016
we conclude that it would have been obvious to the person
having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate any
pharmaceutically acceptable phosphonic acid known to be an
anticalculus agent in the oral composition of Haefele(‘002).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of the examiner.
The Rejection Of Vinson And Ploger (I-II), With Irani, Gaffar,
Parran, Henkel and Kanebo
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of
the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima
facie case of unpatentability.” See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The
examiner relies upon a combination of up to eleven references
to reject the claimed subject matter and establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The basic premise of the rejection
is that the primary reference to Vinson discloses an oral care
composition containing an anticalculus mixture having present
triclosan (component (b)) as one of the antibacterial agents
taught therein. The Ploger references disclose the
azacycloalkane diphosphonic acid which constitute component
(a), and the balance of the references provide motivation for
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007