Appeal No. 2006-1021 Page 9
Application No. 09/851,882
urea as set forth in claim 1 provides a better “after-feel” than a similar
composition comprising Q-10 or urea alone. See Example 11, specification,
pages 27-28.
In our opinion, the evidence set forth in appellants’ specification, trumps
the examiner’s bare assertion that such an “after-feel” would have been expected
from the combined teachings of Hoppe and Raab. In this regard, we note that
neither Hoppe nor Raab discuss the concept of improving the “after-feel” of a
cosmetic composition. Accordingly, we agree with appellants (see Brief, pages
8-9) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
improve the “after-feel” of a cosmetic composition, as set forth in appellants’
claim 45, based on the combined teachings of Hoppe and Raab.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Hoppe and Raab.
Rejection II:
Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 34, 35, 38-41, 43-46,
and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Product Insert, Press Release, Business Wire, Bertelli, and FDC.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 5), Product Insert teaches a
composition comprising, inter alia, coenzyme Q10. With reference to the Press
Release, the examiner finds (id.), the product has been on the market since
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007