Appeal 2007-0107
Application 10/013,885
example, teaches that triazine compounds can be used as an ultraviolet
absorber/protector for cosmetic media including sunburn oils and creams
(col. 15, ll. 53-55). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
employ the triazine compound of Hardy or Susi in a cosmetic as taught, for
example, in Biland, motivated by the reasonable expectation of preventing
sunburns, especially given the UV absorbing properties of the triazine
compounds of Hardy or Susi. Moreover, claim 28 does not specify any
particular sunscreen product compositional requirements beyond those
already recited in representative claim 1. Accordingly, Appellants’
additional arguments with respect to claim 28 are not persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness assessment.
As a final point, we note that Appellants do not rely on any evidence
tending to establish unexpected results for the claimed subject matter in the
Brief.
Having reconsidered the evidence of record for and against a
conclusion of obviousness in light of the respective arguments advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner, it is our determination that, on balance, the
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of an obviousness conclusion with
respect to the rejections under consideration encompassed by representative
claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 5-10, 17, and 28-31
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hardy or Susi,
each in view of Duennenberger I, Duennenberger II, Schellenbaum, Biland,
or Grossman is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013