Appeal 2007-0107
Application 10/013,885
too narrow in their described use of the triazines in combination with
polymers to be suggestive of the claimed combination are untenable. This
line of argument ignores the full teachings and inferences that can be drawn
from the combined teachings of Hardy or Susi taken with the applied
secondary references and the level of skill in the art represented by the
collective teachings of the applied references.
Indeed, Appellants' line of argument is undercut by their own
Specification disclosure which embraces a large genus of triphenyl triazines
and describes a multitude of uses for the disclosed broad genus of
compounds (Specification 1, third para.; 3, last full para.; 8, last para. and
43, second full para.). Appellants' assertions that the Examiner’s proposed
combination of references would have been militated against by asserted
structural distinctions between the triazines of Hardy or Susi and the
triazines of the secondary references has not been substantiated with
persuasive evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found a cosmetic utility for the UV absorbers of Hardy or Susi
unpredictable. In this regard, merely pointing out differences in the triazine
compounds of the secondary references and those of Hardy or Susi does not
explain why those structural differences would have dissuaded one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ the UV absorbing triazine of Hardy or
Susi in a cosmetic formulation.
As for the additional argument with respect to claim 28, it would have
been reasonably predictable that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found that the disclosed UV protective triazine of Hardy or Susi would have
been useful in a sunscreen product in light of the teachings of the secondary
references, as discussed above. In particular, we note that Biland, for
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013