Appeal No. 95-4914
Application No. 08/036,116
10% of an emulsifier, and about 0.05 to 5% of a surfactant.
The composition may also include an active ingredient . The 4
composition provides an enhanced topical and/or transdermal
systemic effect compared to compositions having larger
droplets.
THE PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
Appealed claims 1-16, 23-27, 29, and 30 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over de Vringer.
Appealed claims 17-21 stand similarly rejected under the same
section of the statute as unpatentable over de Vringer in view
of Snyder . We sustain the prior art rejections of the claims5
so rejected.
Appellants contend that de Vringer (published September
30, 1992) is not prior art to the present application, because
appellants are allegedly entitled to the benefit of the filing
date of a previously regularly filed application for the same
invention in Israel (Israeli application 101,387 filed March
26, 1992) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 119. However, as noted by
4See claims 11-14, 22-24, and 26-28.
5Appealed claims 22, 28, 31, and 35 were not rejected on
any prior art basis.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007