Ex Parte Zhu et al - Page 3


                 Appeal No.  2005-0403                                                         Page 3                  
                 Application No.  09/748,466                                                                           
                 In response appellants argue (Brief, pages 5-6),                                                      
                               Hinson discloses a topical emollient containing a source of                             
                        glucose and insulin for the treatment of circulation induced lesions                           
                        (Hinson, abstract).  The circulation induced lesions, such as skin                             
                        lesions, ulcers and maladies, are a pathologic result caused by                                
                        diabetes, phlebitis, or other circulatory problems (Hinson, col. 1,                            
                        lines 12-35).                                                                                  
                               In contrast, the method of the presently claimed invention                              
                        includes applying the composition of the present invention to skin or                          
                        scalp, not skin lesions, skin ulcers, or skin maladies.  Skin lesions,                         
                        skin ulcers, and skin maladies as defined in Hinson are not                                    
                        encompassed by the definition of skin as used in the present                                   
                        application.  For example, the term “wounds” which includes                                    
                        lesions, is considered separate and distinct from skin at page 6,                              
                        lines 11-15, of the specification.                                                             
                        In response, the examiner asserts (Answer, page 4) that he was unable to                       
                 identify a “clear” definition of the term “skin” as it is used in appellants’                         
                 specification.  To the contrary, with reference to pages 2-3 of appellants’                           
                 specification the examiner finds (Answer, page 4), “the specification lists wound                     
                 treatment and skincare in diabetic patients as possible uses of insulin and does                      
                 not distinguish between treating ‘pathological’ and ‘physiological’ changes in the                    
                 skin.”  According to the examiner (page 5), “[t]he fact that Applicant may have                       
                 discovered yet another beneficial effect from the method set forth in the prior art                   
                 does not mean that they are entitled to receive a patent on that method.”  We                         
                 agree.  It is well established that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit                     
                 of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.  See In re                              
                 Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  Thus,                          
                 we agree with the examiner (Answer, page 5), appellants’ discovery that the                           
                 topical application of a composition, consisting essentially of insulin, to skin                      








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007