Appeal No. 2006-1021 Page 6
Application No. 09/851,882
skin. Roughness of the skin of 20- to 40-year olds is improved by giving the skin
moisture.”
Looking to Example III, column 7 of Hoppe, we note that the disclosed
composition comprises a combination of 4.6 parts by weight of glycerol and 0.54
parts by weight of coenzyme Q-10. Stated differently, the ratio of glycerol to
coenzyme Q-10 is about 8.5:1 wt./wt.
As the examiner points out (Answer, page 4), Raab teaches the use of
urea in a concentration of 4 to 10% for cosmetic purposes. See Raab, page 97,
column 2, lines 19-21. In this regard, Raab teach that “[t]he moisturizing capacity
of urea is its most valuable activity for the use in cosmetology.” Raab, page 100,
column 1, lines 18-19. According to Raab, studies demonstrate that “urea was
significantly more active as a moisturizer than glycerol.” Page 98, line 29 to page
100, line 19.
In our opinion, given that Raab teaches that urea is significantly more
active as a moisturizer than glycerol a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to substitute the glycerol component of Hoppe with an
equal concentration (4.6 parts by weight) of urea with the expected advantage of
increasing the moisturizing effect of the composition disclosed by Hoppe. The
resulting composition would have a urea to coenzyme Q-10 ratio of about 8.5:1
wt./wt, well within the requirements of appellants’ claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hoppe and
Raab. As discussed supra, claims 2-13, 15-29, 32-43, and 62-68 fall together
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007