Appeal No. 2006-3254
Application No. 10/347,982
3. JOKURA WITH COLE
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Jokura in view of Cole.4 The Examiner substantially repeats
the arguments regarding Jokura that were raised in the rejection above.
(Answer 7-10.) In addition, the Examiner states that Cole “teaches a topical
composition for the treatment of skin comprising an alkanolamine salt of an
organic acid (see abstract and paragraphs 0011 through 0020 . . . )”; “teaches
that the alkanolamine salt can be formed with any organic acid known to be
useful in skin care compositions (see paragraph 0020 . . . )”; and
“exemplifies providing dimethylaminoethanol (DMAE) . . ., which is [] a
mono-hydroxy substituted amine salt.” (Answer 10.) The Examiner
concludes that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
provide alkanolamine salts of Cole et al. as the salts of malonic acid in the
cosmetic composition of Jokura et al, with [the] expectation of providing a
malonic acid salt that is suitable for cosmetic compositions.”
(Answer 10-11.)
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 1 would have been obvious. We discuss Jokura above. Cole describes
using alkanolamine salts “to reverse or diminish the effects of aging on the
skin.” (¶16.) As a preferred alkanolamine salt, Cole lists an acid salt of
dimethylaminoethanolamine (¶19), which is the mono-hydroxy substituted
amine recited in, for example, claim 2. In addition, Cole states that
“[s]uitable acids for use in the preparation of the alkanolamine salts . . .
4 Cole et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0095991 A1, published
May 22, 2003.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013