Ex Parte Perricone - Page 2

                Appeal No. 2006-3372                                                                           
                Application No. 10/454,521                                                                     

                acid, glucuronic acid, galacturonic acid, gluconic acid, glucoheptonic acid,                   
                α-hydroxybutyric acid, α-hydroxyisobutyric acid, α-hydroxyvaleric acid, α-                     
                hydroxyisovaleric acid, α-hydroxycaproic acid, α-isocaproic acid, tartronic                    
                acid, tartaric acid, malic acid, hydroxyglutaric acid, hydroxyadipic acid,                     
                hydroxypimelic acid, muric acid, citric acid, isocitric acid, saccharic acid,                  
                dihydroxymaleic acid, dihydroxytartaric acid, dihydroxyfumaric acid,                           
                pyruvic acid, methyl pyruvate, ethyl pyruvate, isopropyl pyruvate,                             
                benzoylformic acid, methyl benzoylformate, ethyl benzoylformate, and                           
                mixtures thereof.                                                                              

                11. A composition for the treatment of rosacea comprising from about                           
                0.2% to about 7% a lipoic acid ingredient selected from the group consisting                   
                of lipoic acid, dihydroxylipoic acid, lipoic acid plus, a lipoic or                            
                dihydrolipoic acid ester, a lipoic or dihydrolipoic acid amide, a lipoic or                    
                dihydrolipoic acid salt, and mixtures thereof, and from 1% to about 5% of an                   
                α-hydroxy acid ingredient selected from the group consisting of glycolic                       
                acid, lactic acid, and mixtures thereof.                                                       

                      Claims 1-8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as                        
                being anticipated by McAtee.1  In addition, claims 1-8 and 10-12 stand                         
                rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered obvious by McAtee.                         
                Finally, claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious                     
                over the combination of McAtee and Martin.  We affirm the rejection of                         
                claims 1-8, 11, and 12 as being anticipated by McAtee, and the rejection of                    
                claim 9 as being obvious over the combination of McAtee and Martin.  We                        
                reverse, however, the rejection of claim 10 as being obvious over McAtee,                      
                but enter a new ground of rejection as to that claim.                                          


                                                                                                              
                1 McAtee et al. (McAtee), U.S. Patent No. 5,665,364, issued September 9,                       
                1997.                                                                                          
                                                      2                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013