Appeal No. 95-4914
Application No. 08/036,116
5, line 7. Finally, appellants make no argument that the
examiner has improperly combined the disclosures of Snyder
with de Vringer to suggest the use of a thickening agent in de
Vringer’s compositions.
To the extent that appellants have argued that the use of
the claimed submicron size droplets provide for unexpected
results in terms of "an enhanced topical and/or transdermal
systemic effect" (appealed claim 1), suffice it to say that
appellants refer to no comparisons with de Vringer’s submicron
size droplet compositions, i.e., the closest prior art. In
light of the above, we affirm the rejections of appealed
claims 1-21, 23-27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b), we extend the prior art
rejection to appealed claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over de Vringer. This claim calls for a retinoid as
an active ingredient. At page 5, line 3, de Vringer likewise
suggests that retinoids may be combined in the compositions as
a topically effective ingredient.
THE 35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH, DESCRIPTION
REQUIREMENT REJECTION
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007