Appeal No. 2005-0545
Application No. 09/989,019
that the method of Claim 8 of Application 09/989,019 would have been
prima facie obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to a person having
ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined prior art
teachings. The compositions for use in the method of Claim 8 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the same prior art
teachings for treatment of localized fat accululation, cellulite,
and associated cellulitis.
37 CFR § 41.50(b).
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, it is ORDERED that:
the examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-11 of
Application 09/989,019 is affirmed; and
as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 41.50(b),
Claim 8 of Application 09/989,019 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in view of the combined teachings of Soudant, Koulbanis,
Majeed, Sekiya, De Simone, Lotte, Kuppusamy, and Gennaro of record
in this appeal.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg.
49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7,
2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered
25
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007