Appeal No. 2006-1021 Page 8
Application No. 09/851,882
As discussed above, the composition of claim 1 is prima facie obvious in
view of the combination of Hoppe and Raab. Claim 45 is drawn to a method of
improving the after-feel of a cosmetic composition, by including in the
composition an after-feel enhancing-effective amount of the composition of
appellants’ claim 1. According to page 3 of appellants’ specification, the term
“after-feel” refers to “non-greasiness, rapid absorption, and the like”. According
to appellants (Brief, page 9), neither Hoppe nor Raab “provide any teaching,
suggestion or motivation to modify the subject matter disclosed therein to
perform the method recited in claim 45 of the present application.” We are not
persuaded by appellants’ argument.
As discussed above, Hoppe discloses a cosmetic composition, a skin
cream that comprises a glycerol to coenzyme Q-10 ratio of about 8.5:1 wt./wt.
Raab provides the motivation to substitute urea for the glycerol component of
Hoppe, because according to Raab (page 98, line 29 to page 100, line 19), urea
is a significantly more active moisturizer than glycerol. The resulting composition
would therefore comprise a urea to coenzyme Q-10 ration of about 8.5:1 wt./wt.
Well within the requirements of appellants’ claimed invention.
In this regard, the examiner finds (Answer, page 11), improving after-feel
“is within the scope of the enhanced moisturizing effects that are expected from
combining the teachings of the references.” While this may be true, appellants’
specification demonstrates that a composition comprising coenzyme Q-10 and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007