Appeal No. 2001-0120 Page 6
Application No. 08/695,393
is enhanced by the addition of a penetration enhancer, and lists sodium lauryl
sulfate as a specific example of a penetration enhancer….” However, as Partain
discloses (Col. 3, lines 53-60), “[t]he humectant properties of … chitosan
derivatives, applied to skin or mucous membranes, therefore enhance the
absorption of the actives into these tissues.”
According to Partain, the inventive delivery systems can contain a large
number of pharmaceutical and therapeutic actives that include but are not limited
to anti-inflammatory analgesics, antibiotic agents vasodilators, anti-histamines,
moisturizing agents, additives for the enhanced percutaneous absorption, etc.
Col. 8, line 7 to Col. 9, line 35. We recognize the examiner’s reference to
“sodium lauryl sulfate,” among the list of potential additives for enhanced
percutaneous absorption. What we do not recognize, nor does the examiner
identify, any suggestion to combine an anesthetic with a surfactant in order to
treat burns as required by appellant’s claimed invention. For the foregoing
reasons, it is our opinion that the examiner’s rejection fails to suggest the specific
combination of elements set forth in appellant’s claimed invention.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Cassuto in view of Partain
Accordingly, we reverse all of the prior art rejections of record.
REVERSED
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007