Appeal No. 2006-3372
Application No. 10/454,521
Id.
Appellant argues that Martin does not suggest a claim that requires
tocotrienol in addition to lipoic acid and α-hydroxy acid ingredients (Br. 11).
According to appellant, “[a]lone or in combination, the cited references
point away from using lipoic acid and α-hydroxy acid with tocotrienol . . . to
treat rosacea.” Id. at 12-13.
Appellant is essentially arguing that Martin does not remedy the
deficiencies of McAtee. Thus, this rejection is affirmed for the reasons set
forth above with respect to the anticipation rejection over McAtee.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following
new ground of rejection: Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of McAtee and Duffy.4
As noted above with respect to the rejection of claim 10 as being
obvious over McAtee, McAtee teaches the inclusion of vitamin C and its
derivatives in the skin care compositions disclosed by that reference (col. 10,
ll. 51-55). McAtee, however, does not specifically teach or suggest the use
of a fatty acid ester of vitamin C as the derivative of vitamin C.
Duffy teaches the use of vitamin C or one or more of its derivatives to
decrease the skin irritation caused by the topical administration of an active
ingredient such as α-hydroxy acids (abstract). Duffy teaches that a
derivative of ascorbic acid that may be used is ascorbyl palmitate, a fatty
acid ester of vitamin C (col. 4, ll. 15-35).
4 Duffy, U.S. Patent No. 5,703,122, issued December 30, 1997.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013