Appeal 2007-3390
Application 10/143,915
17-18). Melanin is not included in this listing of toxins, nor does the
Specification identify melanin as a toxin. Further, Appellants’ Specification
states that “[v]itamin C may be especially important in this day and age of
widespread environmental pollution because it combats the effects of many
such toxins” (Specification 5: 15-17). We find, however, no nexus in
Appellants’ Specification between combating the effects of a toxin and
specifically enabling a keratinocyte to expel toxins as required by claim 9.
While combating the effect of a toxin may lead to restoration of the skin,
there is no disclosure in Appellants’ Specification that this is due to the
function of vitamin C to enable a keratinocyte to expel toxins (Br. 5).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 9 under the written
description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Obviousness:
Claims 4-7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Spencer. Since Appellants
do not separately argue the claims they stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we limit our discussion to representative claim
4. Claim 4 is drawn to a process for revitalizing human skin. The claimed
process comprises three steps:
1. destabilizing the lipid bylayers [sic] of the skin using an ultrasonic
device;
2. inserting liquid vitamin C into the epidermis layers of the skin; and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013