Ex Parte Granger et al - Page 1




                          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written               
                                 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.                        

                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                  
                                                   __________                                                      
                            BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                     
                                           AND INTERFERENCES                                                       
                                                   __________                                                      
                            Ex parte STEWART PATON, and IAN RICHARD SCOTT                                          
                                                   __________                                                      
                                              Appeal No. 2006-1801                                                 
                                           Application No. 10/007,869                                              
                                                   __________                                                      
                                                    ON BRIEF                                                       
                                                   __________                                                      
             Before ADAMS, GRIMES, and LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                                     
             LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                

                                             DECISION ON APPEAL                                                    
                    This appeal involves claims to skin care products containing retinoids and                     
             retinoid boosters.  The examiner has rejected the claims as obvious over prior art.  We               
             have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134.  We reverse the rejection, but enter a new                   
             ground of rejection of all claims as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.              
                                                   Background                                                      
                    Retinoic acid is known to be effective in treating a variety of skin conditions,               
             including acne, wrinkles, psoriasis, and discolorations.  Specification, page 1.  The                 
             application describes skin care products which contain retinoic acid precursors (retinal,             
             retinol, and retinyl esters) combined with “retinoid boosters,” compounds known to                    







Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007