Ex Parte Sallin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 2, 2010

10363497 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 2, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/363,497 02/28/2003 Dominique Sallin 3-31579A 3023
1095 7590 09/03/2010
NOVARTIS
CORPORATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ONE HEALTH PLAZA 101/2
EAST HANOVER, NJ 07936-1080
EXAMINER
WANG, SHENGJUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte DOMINIQUE SALLIN, JEAN-LUC KIENZLER,
PHYLLIS SCHUMANN, and JACEK ANCEREWICZ
__________

Appeal 2010-003803
Application 10/363,497
Technology Center 1600
__________

Before CAROL A. SPIEGEL, FRANCISCO C. PRATS and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims to methods for
treating burns, such as sunburn, caused by radiation. The Examiner rejected
the claims as obvious.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-003803
Application 10/363,497

2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

DISCUSSION
Claims 71, 73, 77-79, 81, and 83 stand rejected and are on appeal
(App. Br. 2). Because Appellants did not argue the claims separately, the
claims stand or fall together. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 71 is representative and reads as follows:
Claim 71. A method for treating a burn or burns of the skin of
a mammal caused by radiation, comprising applying to the
irradiated skin of the mammal a topical composition that is an
emulsion gel comprising a pharmaceutical active agent
consisting essentially of diclofenac or a pharmaceutically
acceptable salt thereof in a concentration of 0.1 to 0.7 wt.%
(based on the sodium salt).

The sole rejection before us for review is the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 71, 73, 77-79, 81, and 83 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Shaku,2 Martin,3 and Asche4 et al. (Ans. 3-5).
We have carefully considered the Examiner’s position. We have also
carefully considered all of Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner’s rebuttal,
and the evidence of record.
For the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we affirm the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 71. The remaining claims fall
with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

2 JP 59170011 (published September 26, 1984) (as translated).
3 U.S. Patent No. 5,674,912 (issued October 7, 1997).
4 U.S. Patent No. 4,917,886 (issued April 17, 1990).
Appeal 2010-003803
Application 10/363,497

3
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc

NOVARTIS
CORPORATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ONE HEALTH PLAZA 101/2
EAST HANOVER, NJ 07936-1080