Appeal No. 2006-2059
Application No. 09/998,500
The examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of obviousness:
Buckley et al. (Buckley) 5,281,186 Jan. 25, 1994
Allen 6,361,806 Mar. 26, 2002
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a breast pad for breast-feeding women that
comprises a front side which faces the breast. The front side comprises a composition
comprising omega-3 fatty acids, which improve the health of the breast and nipple skin. The
composition is suitable for ingestion by a suckling infant. According to appellants, “[t]he
composition for use on the breast pad comprises a lipid comprising omega-3 fatty acids to be
introduced onto the surface of a breast bad [sic, pad] which faces the mother during use such that
the omega-3 fatty acids can be transferred from the breast pad to the mother’s breast skin and
nipple during use to replenish skin lipids lost from the breast and nipple skin during breast
feeding “ (page 3 of principal brief, third paragraph).
Appealed claims 1-71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Buckley in view of Allen. The examiner has also objected to the specification as failing to
provide antecedent basis for the recitation that the composition is suitable for ingestion by a
suckling infant, but we note that “[t]hat the examiner contends that a 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection has never been made in the instant application “ (page 8 of answer, last
sentence). Accordingly, inasmuch as an examiner’s objection to the specification is outside our
scope of review, we will limit our consideration to the examiner’s § 103 rejection of the appealed
claims.
Appellants have not separately argued any particular claim on appeal with any reasonable
degree of specificity. At most, appellants’ principal brief, at pages 18 and 19, reiterates the
limitations of various claims on appeal but fails to provide a substantive separate argument for
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007