Ex Parte Zhang et al - Page 8

             Appeal No. 2007-0179                                                          Page 8              
             Application No. 10/601,856                                                                        

             al. require the presence of free dicarboxylic acid.”).  Jokura’s requirement that its             
             skin composition comprises components (B) a dicarboxylic acid and (C) a salt of                   
             the same dicarboxylic acid in a fixed molar ratio refers to how much of the                       
             components are initially combined to prepare the skin cosmetic, not which species                 
             are present in the composition at equilibrium.                                                    
                   Appellants also argue that Jokura “is focused upon achieving moisturization.                
             There is no suggestion that the dicarboxylic acids implicated in achieving this                   
             moisturization would have any effectiveness at stabilizing sunscreen agents,”                     
             which is accomplished by the claimed subject matter.  Br. 5.  We do not find this                 
             argument persuasive.  As explained above, the claimed subject matter comprising                   
             “a salt of malonic acid present as a half-neutralized and a fully neutralized acid in a           
             molar ratio ranging from about 1000:1 to about 1:1000” would have been obvious                    
             to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.  “Mere                    
             recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an                   
             otherwise known invention.”  In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392,                      
             21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  See also Answer 9-10 for additional                       
             arguments which we find fully persuasive.                                                         
                   Finally, Appellants urge that “the Examiner has extrapolated motivation to                  
             use a mixed di- and mono- amine type malonate from a reference which does not                     
             specifically mention this combination of salt, much less provide any specific                     
             example.”  Br. 8.  We are not persuaded by this argument.  As the Examiner                        
             concludes, Jokura’s teaching of malonic acid in a list of 8 dicarboxylic acids                    
             coupled with its disclosure amine and ammonium salts, would have rendered the                     
             choice obvious to the skilled artisan.  Answer 6.   Appellants do not describe the                
             deficiency in this argument.  Moreover, they admit in their patent application that               
             malonic acid “has been reported” in Jokura.  Specification, § [0003].                             



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

Last modified: September 9, 2013