Appeal No. 1996-0682
Application 08/127,121
In light of the above, we agree with the examiner that
the combined teachings of the references relied upon by the
examiner are adequate to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the subject matter defined by appealed claim
25. To the extent that appellants’ specification asserts that
the claimed composition is allegedly unexpectedly stable and
has demonstrated an alleged “superior effect in comparison
with placebo after only four weeks of treatment” of patients
suffering from psoriasis (specification, page 2, lines 1-6 and
page 4, lines 21-36), we note that appellants have offered no
data with respect to these properties or effects for the
claimed compositions or for the prior art creams described in
Leander, the closest prior art. Accordingly, we find that the
subject matter defined by appealed claim 25 would have been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we
therefore affirm the rejection of this claim. Since appealed
claims 26-30 and 37 fall with appealed claim 25, we
necessarily also affirm the rejection of these claims.
Appellants ask for separate consideration for the subject
matter defined by appealed claims 31-35 which relates to a
cream preparation containing an effective amount of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007