Ex Parte Lanzendorfer et al - Page 3


                 Appeal No.  2006-1383                                                         Page 3                  
                 Application No.  10/025,065                                                                           
                        With reference to examples 1-7 of Löffler, the examiner finds (Answer,                         
                 page 3) that Löffler teaches an oil-in-water composition comprising “69.10 -                          
                 81.90% water[ ]2, 5 - 20% lipid phase such as Jojoba oil and mineral oil, 0.1 - 5%                    
                 oligoester emulsifiers which may be up to 10%, and [0.6 - 0.7%] Aristoflex AVC. .                     
                 . .” According to the examiner (id.), the only difference between Löffler and                         
                 appellants’ claimed invention, is that Löffler does not teach the use of “0.2 to                      
                 0.3% of Aristoflex AVC.”  Appellants do not dispute these findings.  See Brief,                       
                 page 4.                                                                                               
                        Appellants, however, part company with the examiner when the examiner                          
                 asserts (Answer, page 3), “[i]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary                       
                 skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and determine the                     
                 particular amount of Aristoflex AVC in the composition, e.g. 0.2 to 0.3% of                           
                 Aristoflex AVC.”  In contrast, appellants assert (Brief, page 4) that Löffler                         
                        merely lists Aristoflex AVC as an ingredient in some examples, but                             
                        nowhere discloses what it is, what it does, or why it is present.  The                         
                        description is totally silent about . . . (Aristoflex AVC).  In the face of                    
                        this void, there is absolutely no teaching or suggestion to reduce                             
                        the amount to 0.2-0.3%.  For there to be such a suggestion, there                              
                        would have to at least be some disclosure of the reasons why                                   
                        Aristoflex was included in the first place, or of what it does.  No one                        
                        would be motivated to “select optimum parameters . . . to achieve a                            
                        beneficial effect”, as the Examiner contends, if they do not know                              
                        what beneficial effect there is to be achieved, or what parameter is                           
                        to be modified.                                                                                
                        There is some merit to both sides of this argument, for the examiner is                        
                 correct in that the “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in                  
                 a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art,” In re Boesch, 617 F.2d                    
                                                                                                                       
                 2 For clarity, we note that the emulsions taught by Löffler “may comprise 5 to 95% by weight . . .    
                 water.”  Löffler, column 3, lines 61-63.                                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007