Appeal No. 2003-0824 Page 3
Application No. 09/713,974
Discussion
Claim 1, the broadest claim on appeal, is directed to a method for
decreasing skin irritation caused by shaving, by contacting the skin with a
chitosan-containing composition. The examiner rejected claim 1, together with
other claims, as obvious in view of Sampino and Sine, as follows:
Sampino et al. describe shaving preparation composition in
water comprising 0.01 – 2% by weight of chitosonium pyrrolidone
carbonxylate [sic] in water. . . . The reference teaches that the
compositions softens [sic] hair and conditions the skin, and reduces
irritation associated with the growth of new hair. . . . The reference
lacks the mention of employing chitosan in the composition.
Sine et al. teach skin care composition for sanitizing and
moisturizing the skin. The reference teaches that soluble chitosan
reduces skin irritation. . . .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to have modified the
composition in Sampino et al. by adding soluble chitosan as taught
by Sine et al. because of the expectation to have produced a[n]
irritation-reducing shaving composition.
Paper No. 5, mailed October 10, 2001, page 2.
“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
1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citations omitted, bracketed material in original).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007