Appeal No. 2005-0403 Page 2
Application No. 09/748,466
Hinson 5,145,679 Sep. 8, 1992
GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 5, 9-14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hinson.
We affirm.
CLAIM GROUPING
According to appellant (Brief, page 3), “[c]laims 5, 9-14 and 16 stand or fall
together.” Since all claims stand or fall together, we limit our discussion to
representative independent claim 5. Claims 9-14 and 16 will stand or fall
together with claim 5. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
DISCUSSION
According to the examiner (Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 3-4),
Hinson teaches a method for treating skin conditions such as skin
Iesions, skin rash, etc. comprising topically applying to the surface
of the skin a topical emollient which is a solution consisting
essentially of glucose and insulin, wherein insulin is present as a
concentration of 0.06-2 units/ml. See Abstract; col. 1, Iines 13-17;
col. 2, Iines 34-36. The compositions of Hinson can be applied to
the skin or scalp. See Examples. With respect to the Iimitations
recited in the preambles of [c]laims 5 and 9, it is noted that newly
discovered results of known processes (i.e. topically applying a
compositions consisting essentially of insulin to the skin or scalp)
are not patentable because such results are inherent. Since the
method step (i.e., topically applying a compositions consisting
essentially of insulin) is the same, the result (i,e,, increasing skin
firmness, etc.) will inherently be the same.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007