Appeal No. 2006-1021 Page 4
Application No. 09/851,882
Claims 43, 44, and 46-61 will stand or fall together with claim 46. Claim 45 will
stand or fall alone. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), Hoppe teaches a
composition that provides moisture1 to the skin and comprises “0.2-0.4 [%] by
weight of coenzyme Q[-]10[ ]2.” The examiner recognizes, however, that Hoppe
fails to teach a composition comprising urea, as is required by appellants’
claimed invention. Answer, page 4. The examiner relies on Raab to make up for
this deficiency in Hoppe. In this regard the examiner finds (id.), “Raab teaches
the use of urea in concentrations of 4-10 wt % in cosmetic and/or dermatological
compositions to provide [among other things a] moisturizing . . . action to the
skin.”3
Based on this evidence, and relying on the principles of In re Kerkhoven,
626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), the examiner
concludes (Answer, page 4), it would have been “prima facie obvious to combine
two compounds each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same
purpose, in order to form a composition which is to be used for the very same
purpose.” In this regard, the examiner asserts that appellants’ “claims define
nothing more than the concomitant use of two skin care actives conventionally
1 Hoppe, column 1, lines 8-58.
2 Hoppe, column 4, lines 55-58.
3 The examiner also finds (Answer, page 4), Raab “teaches urea increases the therapeutic
activity of other pharmaceutical substances, and in Table 3 shows the use of urea in combination
with anti-inflammatory agents . . . in the weight ratio of 10:0.3 to 10:5.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007