Appeal No. 2006-1222 Page 7
Application No. 10/141,442
Obviousness:
Claims 19, 31 and 37-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Warner and Luu. Upon review of the
record, we find similar problems with the obviousness rejection of record as we
observed with the anticipation rejection before us for review. For illustrative
purposes, we make the following observations:
1. Methyl glucose and benzoate esters as emollients:
By way of example, we direct attention to appellants’ claims 13 and 19.
As discussed above, claim 13 is drawn to “[a] lotion comprising a micro-emulsion,
which comprises a polar emollient, a non-polar emollient, a non-ionic surfactant,
and a co-surfactant.” We note that according to claim 13, the lotion comprises
emollients and surfactants. Claim 19 depends from and further limits the non-
ionic surfactant of claim 13 to one which comprises PEG-20 methyl glucose
sesquisterate, PPG-20 methyl glucose ether disterate, or combinations thereof.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 4, emphasis added), “Warner discloses
all aspects of the invention as claimed by the appellants in the instant case with
the exception of the presence of methyl glucose and benzoate esters as
emollients.” The examiner appears to have misunderstood the subject matter set
forth in appellants’ claimed invention. Claim 19 is drawn to a non-ionic
surfactant, not an emollient. To the extent that the examiner would assert that
the compounds set forth in claim 19 function as either an emollient or a non-ionic
surfactant, the examiner failed to articulate such an assertion on this record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007