Appeal No. 2001-1177 Page 9
Application No. 08/781,868
3. Obviousness
The examiner rejected all of the composition claims as obvious over
N’Guyen and Burke, or N’Guyen and Burke in combination with one of six other
references. The examiner also rejected all of the method claims as obvious over
N’Guyen, Burke, and all six of the other references relied on with respect to the
method claims.
A. N’Guyen and Burke
The examiner rejected claims 35, 37, 38, and 44 as obvious over N’Guyen
and Burke. The examiner noted that N’Guyen discloses topical compositions
comprising glutathione for treating or preventing cutaneous aging, while Burke
discloses topical compositions comprising selenoamino acids for treating skin
damage caused by UV irradiation. Examiner’s Answer, pages 5-6. Burke
discloses that the “cumulative damage caused by UV irradiation is denoted in the
medical dermatologic literature as ‘photoaging’ and is manifested clinically by
wrinkles [and] dry, waxy skin.” Column 1, lines 25-28. The examiner concluded
that these teachings would have rendered the presently claimed compositions
prima facie obvious.
“In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, the Examiner
bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based upon
the prior art. ‘[The Examiner] can satisfy this burden only by showing some
objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art would lead that individual to combine the relevant
teachings of the references.’” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007