Appeal No. 2001-1242
Application No. 08/530,650
long chain fatty acid monoester and soaps of aliphatic acids, alkyl aryl sulfonates, alkyl aryl
polyethersulfonates, fatty alcohol sulfates and sulfonic acid compounds. Examples of
anionic emulsifiers are provided as well as other suitable emulsifiers. Column 4, lines 45-
54. Thus, Buchalter primarily describes selection of a single emulsifier and does not
appear to contemplate the specific surfactant mixture (C) and (D), as claimed.
In addition, according to Buchalter, “the oil phase may also include emollients such
as cetyl alcohol which also functions as a stiffening agent, as well as film formers,
deodorants, opacifiers, astringents, solvents and the like. In addition, stabilizers can be
added to enhance the shelf life of the oil phase such as non-ionic surfactants, cellulose
derivatives, protein and lecithin. All of the above types of materials are known in the art as
additives for cream formulations.” Column 5, lines 34-45.
However, what is missing from the examiner's analysis is specific evidence of
reason, suggestion or motivation, as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to modify the disclosure of Buchalter to combine the two surfactants within the
descriptions of appellants’ components (C) and (D) or to combine this surfactant system
with an emollient and an immobilizing agent, as claimed.
In cases such as this where a single prior art reference is alleged to render the
claimed invention obvious, there must be a sufficient showing of a suggestion or motivation
for any modification of the teachings of that reference necessary to reach the claimed
invention in order to support the obviousness conclusion. Sibia Neuroscis., Inc. v. Cadus
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007