Appeal No. 2000-1541
Application 08/608,954
sentence bridging pages 4-5 of the Examiner’s Answer, the examiner indicates that
appellants have admitted that procaine is known to stimulate hair growth and has been
administered topically. The examiner has concluded that since nicotinic acid and procaine
were known individually to promote hair growth and to be useful topically, the combination
of the two agents would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We disagree.
Szegö describes compositions useful as cosmetics in which the active agent is the
reaction product of nicotinic acid and a polyhydroxy compound. It is those active agents
which are described in the reference as being useful for stimulating scalp or hair bulbs.
The only mention in the reference directed to nicotinic acid per se is at column 1, lines 10-
13, where Szegö acknowledges that nicotinic acid exerts a vasodilating effect. Szegö
does not indicate that nicotinic acid per se is useful in stimulating hair growth.
The admissions relied upon by the examiner are in fact statements in the
specification which summarize certain prior art documents. Neither appellants nor the
examiner have placed the full text documents in the record. Thus, we have only reviewed
the synopsis of the documents provided in the specification.
The synopsis appearing at page 7, lines 32-45 only indicates that solutions of
niacin and procaine hydrochloride have been used for intravenous administration to treat a
number of conditions which appellants characterize as not including hair loss. Appellants
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007