Appeal No. 2005-0545
Application No. 09/989,019
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 11), the examiner withdrew this
rejection upon reconsideration. However, the examiner’s reasons why
the rejection of Claim 8 was withdrawn are unclear. In the
paragraph bridging pages 3-4 (EA3-4), the examiner indicated that
the cited prior art, save Koulbanis and Soudant, are silent on
treating cellulites. We disagree. As we have indicated
hereinabove, Kuppusamy shows that genistein, quercetin, and fisetin
are potent PDE (phosphodiesterase) inhibitors (Kuppusamy, p. 1309,
Table 2). Sekiya teaches that the isoflavone genistein promotes
degradation of fat when percutaneously administered (Sekiya, col. 1,
l. 55, to col. 2, l. 62). Soudant and Koulbanis teach that
PDE inhibition is the key to combating cellulitis and that anti-
cellulitis PDE inhibitors can be effectively administered topically
(Soudant, col. 1, l. 58, to col. 2, l. 24; Koulbanis, col. 1, l. 34,
to col. 3, l. 54). Accordingly, the combined prior art, considered
as a whole, would have reasonably taught persons having ordinary
skill in the art that oil-in-water emulsions comprising tolerable
amounts of one or more known PDE inhibitors and one or more agents
active in promoting lipolysis and/or lean body mass and/or tissue
regeneration by various mechanisms reasonably could be expected to
effectively treat localized fat accumulation in women, cellulite and
cellulitis associated therewith and arising therefrom. We conclude
24
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007