Appeal No. 95-4914
Application No. 08/036,116
nanoparticles. See de Vringer at page 5, lines 13-21.
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that a prima facie
case of obviousness is established for the subject matter
defined by the broader claims on appeal.
We also find that de Vringer fairly suggests the subject
matter of the separately argued dependent claims. For
example, appealed claim 2 specifies a mean droplet size range
of between about 0.1 and 0.3 microns (i.e., between 100 and
300 nanometers) while de Vringer discloses a somewhat broader
droplet size range between 50 and 1000 nanometers(page 4, line
35) and exemplifies a composition having a mean particle size
droplet of 132 nanometers (page 6, line 12). With respect to
the appealed claims 20 and 21, which call for a skin
penetration enhancer component, we note that de Vringer also
contemplates the use of penetration enhancers. See page 5,
lines 25 and 26 of the reference. With respect to appellants’
arguments that imply that de Vringer does not suggest
application of the prior art compositions to treat skin
disorders, for example, as specified in appealed claim 25, we
point out that de Vringer’s compositions are useful as anti-
psoriatics and anti-eczema agents. See the reference at page
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007