Appeal No. 2006-1021 Page 13
Application No. 09/851,882
forth in Rejection II above. As discussed above, this combination of references
fails to provide a suggestion or motivation to formulate a composition comprising
coenzyme Q10 and urea.
The examiner relies on Hoppe to teach “formulations comprising
coenzyme Q10 and additives.” However, as discussed in Rejection I, Hoppe fails
to teach a composition comprising urea. Hoppe, therefore, fails to make up for
the deficiencies in the combination of Product Insert, Press Release, Business
Wire, Bertelli, and FDC discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 13, 16, 18,
22, 28, 31-33, 36, 42, 47-53, and 55-68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Product Insert, Press Release, Business
Wire, Bertelli, FDC, and Hoppe
Rejection IV:
Claims 23-25 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Product Insert, Press Release, Business
Wire, Bertelli, FDC, Hoppe and Raab. Having disposed of claims 23-25 and
37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hoppe
and Raab, we do not reach the merits of this rejection.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12,
2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007