Appeal 2007-3390
Application 10/143,915
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claim 9 stands rejected under the written description provision of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
2. Claims 4-7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Spencer.
We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Written Description:
Claim 9 stands rejected under the written description provision of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The Examiner finds that “[c]laim 9 recites
‘enabling vitamin C to expel toxins and repair cells’,” which is unsupported
by Appellants’ originally filed Specification. According to the Examiner,
[e]ven though the application states: “vitamin C may be
especially important in this day and age of widespread
environmental pollution because it combats the effects of many
such toxins” (page 5 of the application ), the application never
provide[s] support that vitamin C “enabling the keratinocyte
cells to expel toxins and repair cells.”
(Answer 3.)
In response, Appellants direct attention to page 5 of their
Specification, which teaches that vitamin C functions to export procollagen
molecules like Melanin out of cells which results in the restoration of the
skin’s pigmentation (Br. 4-5; Specification 5: 1-9). We note, however, that
Appellants’ Specification defines toxins as “including ozone, carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, pesticides and heavy metals . . .” (Specification 5:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013