Appeal No. 2001-1177 Page 3
Application No. 08/781,868
Claims 45-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
N’Guyen, Burke, Cavazza, Piazza, Otsu, Levin, Finkenauer, and Spector.
We affirm the rejection of the composition claims (claims 35-44) but
reverse the rejection of the method claims (claims 45-54).
Background
“Skin peeling programs (chemical or thermal peels) are designed to
remove ‘dead’ skin with the aim of being replaced by new, clearer and younger
cells yielding smooth and firmer skin.” Specification, page 1. Such therapies are
used to treat, among other things, sun-damaged skin and fine lines. See id.
However, these therapies can also result in damage to the skin, resulting from
the generation of free radicals. See id., page 8.
The specification discloses “a composition and method for reducing the
cutaneous effects and complications of chemosurgery and laser therapy of
induced skin damage. The composition comprises an effective amount of a
glutathione and selenoamino acid since selenium is a co-factor of glutathione
peroxidase.” Page 13. The specification also discloses that the “composition
can be formulated as a lotion containing from about 0.01% to 10% of the above
described active ingredients.” Page 27. The specification discloses several
exemplary compositions that contain 0.03% glutathione and 0.03%
selenomethionine. See pages 28-29 (“reparative hand and nail formula”), 32-33
(“protein gel masque”), 34-35 (“sunburn lotion”), 37-38 (“sun gel”), and 38-40
(“reparative cream”).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007