Appeal No. 2006-3254
Application No. 10/347,982
include any organic acid known to be useful in skin care compositions.”
(¶20.) We conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to use the alkanolamines described in Cole as the cation of the
dicarboxylic acid salt described in Jokura.
Appellants traverse this rejection for substantially the same reasons
that they traverse the rejection over Jokura in view of Günter. We are
unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed above.
Appellants also argue that Jokura “mentions malonic as one of a series
of dicarboxylic acids. It has not been singled out.” (Br. 13.) In addition,
Appellants argue that “[m]alonic acid is not disclosed in Cole et al. This
reference focuses upon forming salts with alpha-hydroxycarboxylic acids.”
(Br. 12.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Although Jokura does not
exemplify a composition in which the dicarboxylic acid salt is a malonic
acid salt, Jokura lists malonic acid among a list of only eight dicarboxylic
acids. (Col. 3, ll. 31-37.) Thus, we conclude that the Examiner has set forth
a prima facie case that a composition containing a malonic acid salt would
have been obvious based on the teachings of Jokura.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 1 would have been obvious over Jokura in view of Cole, which
Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2, 4-8, 10, and 11 fall with claim 1.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013