Appeal No. 2006-0728 Page 5
Application No. 10/198,714
We agree with the examiner that Ramachandran anticipates claim 1. As
discussed above, claim 1 is directed to a method that comprises applying to the skin a
composition containing a metal pyrithione. Ramachandran discloses a method in which
a skin cleansing composition “containing 2.0 wt % zinc pyrithione” was applied to the
skin. Column 10, lines 26-34. Ramachandran therefore anticipates claim 1.
Appellants argue that “[t]he use of metal pyrithione to stimulate the production of
stratum corneum lipids is neither disclosed nor suggested by Ramachandran.” Appeal
Brief, page 8.
This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, the preamble of claim 1
recites nothing more than the purpose or intended result of the method defined by the
body of the claim. The preamble of claim 1 is not a limitation and therefore the claim
reads on methods of applying metal pyrithione to the skin for purposes other than to
increase the level of intercellular lipids in the stratum corneum, including the method
disclosed by Ramachandran.
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Ramachandran. Claims 2-6
and 9 fall with claim 1 because they were not argued separately.
With respect to claim 8, Appellants argue that “there is nothing in Ramachandran
et al. that discloses or suggests a process which involves measuring the increase in
lipid level in the skin, i.e., stratum corneum lipid, as required by this claim.” Appeal
Brief, page 9.
We agree with Appellants that Ramachandran does not anticipate claim 8,
although not for the reason urged by Appellants. As discussed above, Ramachandran
discloses a method in which a zinc pyrithione-containing composition was applied to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007