Appeal No. 2007-0179 Page 9
Application No. 10/601,856
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in the Answer, we affirm
the rejection of claim 1. Because claim 3 was not separately argued, it falls with
claim 1.
Rejection over Jokura in view of Takada
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jokura in
view of Takada.
Jokura was discussed above. “[E]xample 3 teaches a sunscreen lotion
comprising an organic acid, 0.5% of an organic acid salt, and 2% 4-tert-butyl-4-
methoxybenzoyl-methane, among other components.” Answer 6. Takada teaches
4-[1,1-dimethlyethyl)-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane as a sunscreen to protect skin
against ultraviolet radiation. Takada at 1. The latter “is also known as 4,4-t-
butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane as recited in dependent claim 6.” Answer 6. The
methoxydibenzoylmethane compound is formulated with organic acids to prevent
its discoloration and reduction in UV absorbance over time. Takada at 2. Malonic
acid is listed among 13 specifically named organic acids as useful to protect the
methoxydibenzoylmethane compound. Id.
The Examiner argues:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to look to combine the teaching of
Jokura et a1 and [Takada] and utilize the instant sunscreen agent (4,4-
t-butyl-methoxydibenzoylmethane). One would have been motivated
to do so since [Takada] teaches methoxydibenzoylmethane is an
effective sunscreen agent. Thus, a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to substitute Jokura's methoxybenzoylmethane’s derivative
with the instantly claimed methoxydibenzoylmethane since [Takada]
teaches the instantly claimed sunscreens [as] an effective UV
absorber. Further, a skilled artisan would have expected similar results
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013