Manuel Pesaro et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 6, 2020

2019004328 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2020)

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.
14/772,961 09/04/2015 Manuel Pesaro 1507-127 8358
28249 7590 05/06/2020
DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP
Dilworth & Barrese, LLP
1000 WOODBURY ROAD
SUITE 405
WOODBURY, NY 11797
EXAMINER
LOVE, TREVOR M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptomail@dilworthbarrese.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MANUEL PESARO, SABINE LANGE, and
GERHARD SCHMAUS
____________

Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal1,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
method of stabilizing an emulsion by adding an acetophenone derivative.
The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious, lacking written description,
and indefinite. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Symrise AG
(see Appeal Br. 1).
2 We have considered and herein refer to the Specification of Sept. 4, 2015
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action of Aug. 24, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief
of Oct. 4, 2018 (“Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer of Jan. 7, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“A major problem for cosmetic compositions . . . in particular for all
types of emulsions, is . . . their stability, especially in case they are subjected
to difficult storage conditions, like high or low temperatures” (Spec. ¶ 4).
“[T]he object of the present invention has been to identify a multi-functional
additive for cosmetic formulations, which does not negatively interact with
other ingredients while improving the stability, viscosity and the sensorial
profile of the cosmetic compositions containing this additive” (id. ¶ 9).
“Surprisingly it has been observed that the acetophenone derivatives
according to the present invention:” (1) “improve[] the stability of cosmetic
formulations,” (2) “lead to the formation of smaller droplets in the
compositions,” and (3) “improve the foam stability of shampoo” (Spec.
¶ 12).
The Claims
Claims 19, 22, 24, 26–31, and 34 are on appeal.3 Independent claim
19 is representative and reads as follows:
19. A method of stabilizing an emulsion against separation
comprising:

adding to an emulsion a composition, comprising

(a) at least one acetophenone derivative selected from
the group consisting of 2-hydroxyacetophenone, 4-
hydroxacetophenone, or a cosmetically or pharmaceutically
acceptable salt thereof, in a working amount of from 0.1 to 0.5
% b.w. — calculated on the total composition,

(b) at least one oil body or wax, and/or

3 Claims 21, 23, 25, 32, and 33 are withdrawn (Final Act. 3).
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

3

(c) at least one emulsifier and optionally

(d) at least one active principle.

(Appeal Br. 30).

The Rejections
A. The Examiner rejected claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as lacking written description (Final Act. 4–7).
B. The Examiner rejected claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite for lacking antecedent basis (Final Act. 7).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 19, 22, 24, 26–31, and 34 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Scheurich4 (Final Act. 7–10).

A. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description
The Examiner finds claim 34 “contains subject matter which was not
described in the specification” for two reasons (Final Act. 4). First, the
Examiner finds the claim recites a particle size range for “the composition”
of claim 19, which is added to an emulsion (id. at 5). However, the
Examiner finds that “[t]he only concept of particle size distribution in the
specification is directed to the particle size distribution of an emulsion” (id.).
Second, the Examiner finds the particle size “range is arbitrary and
unsupported” (id. at 6). Specifically, the Examiner finds the particle size
range “is new matter because the specification and the claims as originally

4 Scheurich et al., WO 2011/141110 A2, published Nov. 17, 2011. We cite
to the English language version of Scheurich et al., US 2013/0059924 A1,
published Mar. 7, 2013.
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

4
filed do not support the concept of a particle size distribution of 10% being
[an] arbitrarily lower number than 1.55 . . . . Further, Appellant's
nomenclature is not standard in the field” (Ans. 6–7).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 34 lacks written description in
the Specification?
Findings of Fact (“FF”)
1. Claim 34 reads as follows:
34. The method of Claim 19 wherein the composition has a
particle size distribution of 10% < 1.55 microns, 50% < 8.81
microns, and 90% < 17.50 microns.

Principles of Law
“In the context of the written description requirement, an adequate
prima facie case must . . . sufficiently explain to the applicant what, in the
examiner’s view, is missing from the written description. . . . When no such
description can be found in the specification, the only thing the PTO can
reasonably be expected to do is to point out its nonexistence.” Hyatt v.
Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Analysis
Appellant contends “that the term ‘composition’ and ‘emulsion’ are
used interchangeably in the specification, as regards the particle size
distribution” (Appeal Br. 26). Appellant contends that “the use of the term
‘composition’ as regards the recited particle size distribution has support in
the originally filed specification” (id. at 27). As to the Examiner’s finding
regarding the nomenclature of particle size distribution, Appellant contends
“[particle size distribution] psd is a mathematical approximation of particle
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

5
sizes (i.e., a relative amount) that fall within distinct ranges of sizes, and
thus, is not an absolute value. The use of psd is used extensively and
throughout patent literature” (id.).
We agree with Appellant as to the nomenclature of particle size
distribution in terms of relative values (see Spec. ¶ 131). Appellant’s
terminology is commonly used for describing particle size distribution and is
neither arbitrary nor unsupported. Rather, the Specification expressly
discloses the specific particle size distribution recited by the claim in Table 3
as Example 6 (Spec. ¶ 130).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument as to written description
support for the “composition” of claim 19 defined by the particle size
distribution of claim 34. “[C]laims are interpreted with an eye toward giving
effect to all terms in the claim.” Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945,
950 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Claim 34 recites “the composition has a particle size
distribution” (Appeal Br. 31). Claim 19 recites “adding to an emulsion a
composition, comprising” at least one acetophenone, at least one oil body,
and at least one emulsifier (id. at 30). The plain meaning of claim 19
distinguishes between “an emulsion” and “a composition” as these are two
separate elements with the composition being added to an emulsion. Giving
effect to all the terms of the claim, we interpret claim 34 to require a particle
size distribution of the composition containing at least one acetophenone, at
least one oil body, and at least one emulsifier; the composition being a
distinct component different from an emulsion.
The Specification describes the claimed particle size distribution for
oil-in-water emulsions containing at least water and “the composition” of
claims 19 and 34 (Spec. ¶¶ 122–130). The Specification does not describe
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

6
the claimed particle size distribution for “the composition” itself in claims
19 and 34 (see id.). “Where, as here, the claim is susceptible to only one
reasonable construction . . . . [W]e must construe the claims based on the
[applicant’s] version of the claims as he himself drafted it.” Process Control
Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (see also
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“a patent applicant has
the opportunity and responsibility to remove any ambiguity in claim term
meaning by amending the application”).
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that claim
34 lacks written description support.

B. 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, antecedent basis
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 34 lacks antecedent basis?
Principles of Law
“Despite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, [i]f the scope of a
claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the
claim is not indefinite.” Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 435
F.3d 1366, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).
Analysis
Appellant contends “the word ‘particle’ is part of the expression
‘particle size distribution,’ and as such, should be analyzed for antecedent
basis in terms of the entire expression, and not just the word ‘particle’”
(Appeal Br. 28). Appellant argues “it is widely understood that emulsions
[have] particles therein, not necessarily in the sense of hard particulate
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

7
matter but rather ‘droplets’ of the oil phase which are finely divided in the
emulsion. Support for this is found in paragraphs [0006] and [0012] of the
originally filed specification” (id.).
The Examiner responds “[t]he rejection is based on a lack of
antecedent basis for the concept of the particle that Appellant appears to be
measuring in claim 34. . . . The claim is insufficiently clear as to what is
intended as the antecedent for the concept of particle” (Ans. 7). The
Examiner finds Appellant’s argument that particle means droplet “is not
found persuasive since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to
make that interpretive leap without guidance from the specification or
claims, wherein no such guidance for the redefining of particle exists in the
application as originally filed” (id.).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Specification
explains that emulsion compositions are characterized by a particle size
distribution of droplets inherently present in the emulsion (Spec. ¶¶ 6, 12,
129). As applied to the claims, we find that “particle size distribution” as
recited by claim 34 would be readily ascertainable by a person of ordinary
skill in the art as relating to the particle size distribution of droplets.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that claim 34 lacks antecedent basis.

C. 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Scheurich
The Examiner finds Scheurich teaches a stabilized emulsion
composition including an acetophenone derivative stabilizer, e.g., 2-
hydroxyacetophenone and 4-hydroxyacetopheone (Final Act. 8). The
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

8
Examiner finds that the composition may be an oil-in-water emulsion used
as a cosmetic (id. at 8–9). The Examiner finds the cosmetic composition
may include 0.05 to 20% stabilizer; at least one oil body, e.g.,
cyclomethicone; and at least one emulsifier, e.g., polyglyceryl-3
methylglycose distearate and cetearyl alcohol (id.). The Examiner
acknowledges that “Scheurich, while teaching all of the instantly claimed
components, and amounts that overlap the instantly claimed ranges, does not
directly exemplify everything in a single embodiment” (id. at 9). However,
the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine the components in the claimed amounts for their
known uses (see id.).
The Examiner addresses Appellant’s objective evidence of
nonobviousness (id. at 9–10). The Examiner finds Appellant’s results are
not unexpected, and are not commensurate with the scope of the claims (id.
at 10). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes the claims would have been
obvious over Scheurich (see id.).
The issues with respect to this rejection is:
(i) Does a preponderance of evidence of record support the
Examiner’s conclusion that the prior art renders the claims obvious?
(ii) If so, has Appellant presented objective evidence, that when
weighed with the evidence of obviousness, is sufficient to support a
conclusion of non-obviousness?
Findings of Fact
2. Scheurich teaches a method of photostabilizing a cosmetic
composition by adding an acetophenone derivative (Scheurich 23–24
(claims 1, 13)).
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

9
3. Scheurich teaches the acetophenone stabilizers may include 4-
methoxyacetophenone (4-MAP), 4-hydroxyacetophenone (4-HAP), and 2-
hydroxyacetophenone (2-HAP) (Scheurich ¶¶ 61, 62).
4. Scheurich teaches the acetophenone stabilizer is typically
employed in amounts of 0.05 to 20% by weight depending on the intended
action of the composition (Scheurich ¶ 99).
5. Scheurich teaches suitable cosmetic compositions in the form
of oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions, including oily lotions (Scheurich ¶¶ 202,
215).
6. Scheurich teaches an example of an O/W emulsion including an
acetophenone derivative, e.g., 4-methoxyacetophenone; 2.5% emulsifier,
e.g., polyglyceryl-3 methylglycose distearate; 10% oil body, e.g.,
cyclomethicone; and an active principle, e.g., octyl salicylate (Scheurich
¶ 249 (Emulsion D)).
Principles of Law
“In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
patentee controls. . . . [A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor
at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419–20 (2007).
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusion of law
(Final Act. 7–10; FF 2–6) that the claims would have been obvious over
Scheurich. We address Appellant’s arguments below.
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

10
1. Independent Claim 19
Appellant contends the claimed invention is directed to stabilizing
emulsions against separation by adding small amounts of 2-HAP and 4-HAP
which leads to a reduction in the emulsion’s droplet size (Br. 9). In contrast,
Appellant contends that Scheurich is directed to photostabilizing
photodegradable components, such as pigments, UV filters, and polymers
against daylight or artificial radiation (id.). Appellant argues that “the
inventions of [Scheurich] and the present invention are directed to
completely different areas of technology, and the mechanisms used to
address the issues in each of those inventions are also completely different”
(id.) (emphasis omitted). Because Scheurich solves a different problem by
choosing from “nearly 50 species of compounds,” Appellant argues that “the
Examiner has not provided a sufficient rationale” for a person of ordinary
skill in the art to choose 4-HAP or 2-HAP from numerous other stabilizers
for use in an emulsion (id. at 9–10) (emphasis omitted).
We do not find this argument persuasive. “One of the ways in which
a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there
existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an
obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” 550 U.S. at 419–
420. Scheurich teaches a known problem i.e., photostability of cosmetic
emulsions (FF 2). Scheurich teaches a solution encompassed by the instant
claims, i.e., a method of adding an acetophenone stabilizer in an amount of
0.05 to 20% by weight to the emulsion (FF 2–4). Scheurich further teaches
a finite number of known solutions, e.g., 2-HAP and 4-HAP, as
acetophenone stabilizers (FF 3).
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

11
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the problem solved by Scheurich
does not have to be the same problem solved by the Appellant to arrive at an
obvious method of adding an acetophenone derivative to a cosmetic
emulsion. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. By identifying a problem known in
the field of the invention, i.e., cosmetic emulsions, and an obvious solution
encompassed by the claims, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with
rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
id. at 418. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining the claims are
prima facie obvious.
Appellant contends that the claimed invention is nonobvious due to “a
clear showing of unexpected effect in using the specifically claimed
components in providing emulsion stability” (Appeal Br. 10) (emphasis
omitted). Appellant submits the Lange Declaration5 as evidence of
unexpected results (id.). The Lange Declaration describes preparing O/W
emulsions containing no acetophenone stabilizer (Example C2), 4-HAP
(Examples 4–6), and 4-MAP (Examples C7–C9) (Lange Decl. 3 (Table 2)).
The resulting emulsions were tested for particle size distribution (id. at 4
(Table 3)). The Lange Declaration attests “[a]s can be seen, adding of 4-
hydroxyacetophenone shifts the maximum average particle size to smaller
values and leads to more finely divided emulsions. The addition of 4-
Methoxyacetophenone leads to bigger sizes in comparison to Placebo C2,
and in comparison, to emulsions containing 0.1 and 0.3% 4-
Hydroxyacetophenone” (id. at 4).

5 Declaration of Sabine Lange dated Nov. 16, 2017 (“Lange Decl.”).
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

12
The Lange Declaration explains that “[a]n oil in water emulsion (o/w)
consists of oil droplets which are distributed in the water phase. The smaller
the oil droplets are, the more stable the emulsion will be” (id. at 8). The
Lange Declaration concludes “it can be clearly seen that the use of 4-
hydroxyacetophenone provides for smaller particle size emulsions than 4-
methoxyacetophenone and improved emulsion stability” (id. at 9).
Appellant contends “[t]he surprising difference in particle size in the
above noted data is clearly an unexpected effect that clearly evidences the
improved properties to using 4-HAP over 4-MAP” (Appeal Br. 12).
Appellant contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would not
appreciate the dramatic and unexpected improvement in using the recited
acetophenone compound 4-HAP over the 4-MAP of Scheurich” (id.).
We do not find Appellant’s evidence persuasive of nonobviousness.
Unexpected properties do not necessarily guarantee nonobviousness.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 752 F.3d 967, 977
(Fed. Cir. 2014). “While a ‘marked superiority’ in an expected property
may be enough in some circumstances to render a compound patentable, a
‘mere difference in degree’ is insufficient” (id.). “When assessing
unexpected properties, therefore, we must evaluate the significance and
‘kind’ of expected results along with the unexpected results” (id.).
We recognize Appellant’s contention that the examples including 4-
HAP are characterized by a smaller particle size than the comparative
examples containing 4-MAP. We also recognize that Scheurich does not
predict this result. However, we do not agree that the unexpected results
establish nonobviousness, because the results are not different “in kind.”
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

13
We begin with the significance of the results as to improved emulsion
stability. Scheurich discloses O/W emulsions for cosmetic compositions (FF
4, 5). Although Scheurich does not discuss emulsion stability, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have inferred that the disclosed compositions
would have an acceptable level of stability in order to function as cosmetic
compositions. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ”). Appellant’s evidence with respect to Scheurich does not compare
emulsion stability of the 4-HAP emulsions with the 4-MAP emulsions.
Therefore, there is no evidence that the claimed invention provides an “in
kind” improvement in emulsion stability as compared to the prior art.
The Specification also does not support a conclusion that smaller
particle size correlates to an “in kind” improvement in emulsion stability. In
Tables 1 and 2, Examples 1 and 4 contain an amount of 4-HAP (0.1%)
within the claimed range, but were not reported to have statistically
significant differences in stability as compared to comparative examples C1
and C2, which contained no acetophenone stabilizer (Spec. ¶¶ 122, 126). As
to the examples characterized by a statistically significant difference in
stability, there is no indication that the difference is one “in kind,” e.g., that
the comparative example has unacceptable stability as compared to the 4-
HAP containing compositions (id.). Rather, all of the compositions fall in a
similar range on the instability index between 0.26–0.37, wherein 0 indicates
very stable and 1 indicates complete separation (id. ¶ 121). See In re Soni,
54 F.3d 746, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Mere improvement in properties does
not always suffice to show unexpected results”).
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

14
Likewise, the difference in particle size also appears to be one of
degree rather than “in kind” for both the comparative examples without
acetophenone, and those containing 4-MAP. For example, there is no
evidence that particle sizes of the 4-MAP (0.1%, 0.3%, and 0.5%)
containing compositions characterized a D (v, 0.9) of 19.07, 21,.47, and
20.23, respectively, are different in kind from the 4-HAP (0.1%, 0.3%, and
0.5%) containing compositions characterized by a D (v, 0.9) of 13.64, 14.20,
and 17.50, respectively.
There is also no indication that these differences result in any stability
difference at all in the Sabine Declaration, much less a stability difference
that is sufficient to demonstrate unexpected results.
Conclusion of Law
A preponderance of the evidence of record, when balanced with the
asserted evidence of unexpected results, supports the Examiner’s conclusion
that claim 19 would have been obvious over Scheurich.

2. Dependent Claims 22, 24, and 26
Appellant separately argues dependent claims 22, 24, and 26 (Appeal
Br. 18–20). Dependent claim 22 recites specific oil bodies, including
silicone oils (id. at 30). Dependent claim 24 recites specific types of
emulsifiers, including non-ionic emulsifiers, e.g., Polyglyceryl-3
Methylglucose Distearate (Spec. ¶ 32) (id. at 31). Dependent claim 26
recites ranges for the components recited in claim 19 (id.).
Appellant contends the recited classes of oils (claim 22) and
emulsifiers (claim 24), and amount ranges of components (claim 26),
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

15
“render [claims 22, 24, and 26] even further patentable over [Scheurich]”
(Appeal Br. 18–20).
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Scheurich teaches
oils and emulsifiers within the recited classes (FF 5). Likewise, Scheurich
teaches amounts of components that fall within the claimed ranges for the
composition (see id.; see also Final Act. 9). “A prima facie case of
obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition
overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325,
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the claims would have been prima facie
obvious over Scheurich. As discussed as to claim 19, we do not find
Appellant’s evidence of nonobviousness persuasive. Accordingly, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 24, and 26.

3. Dependent claims 30 and 31
Appellant separately argues dependent claims 30 and 31 (Appeal Br.
20–23). Dependent claims 30 and 31 limit the acetophenone derivative to 4-
HAP (Appeal Br. 31). Dependent claim 31 also limits the emulsion to a
cosmetic emulsion (id.).
Appellant contends that the specific recitation of 4-HAP addresses the
Examiner’s determination that the unexpected results are not commensurate
with the scope of claim 19, which recites 2-HAP or 4-HAP (see id. at 21–22;
see also Final Act. 10).
As discussed with respect to claim 19, Appellant’s evidence of
unexpected results relates to experiments performed with 4-HAP. We do
not find the results establish nonobviousness when considered as a whole
Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

16
with the prior art. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 30 and 31.

4. Dependent claim 34
Appellant separately argues dependent claim 34 (Appeal Br. 23–25)
as being nonobvious over Scheurich. Dependent claim 34 recites “[t]he
method of Claim 19 wherein the composition has a particle size distribution
of 10% < 1.55 microns, 50% < 8.81 microns, and 90% < 17.50 microns” (id.
at 31).
Appellant contends “[t]here is no recitation of a particle size
distribution in [Scheurich] whatsoever” (id. at 25).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Scheurich teaches
preparing oil-in-water emulsions with 4-HAP, at least one oil body, at least
one emulsifier, and at least one active principle (FF 2, 4, 5). The oil-in-
water emulsions inherently include droplets having an average particle size
(see Spec. ¶ 6). The average particle size distribution resulting from
combining the composition with an emulsion is an inherent property of the
composition, and an obvious composition cannot become nonobvious
simply by claiming the resulting particle size distribution. See Santarus, Inc.
v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “To hold
otherwise would allow any formulation—no matter how obvious—to
become patentable merely by testing and claiming an inherent property”
(id.). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 34 as
obvious.

Appeal 2019-004328
Application 14/772,961

17
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
34 112, first
paragraph
Written description 34
34 112, second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 34
19, 22, 24,
26–31, 34
103 Scheurich 19, 22, 24,
26–31, 34

Overall
Outcome
19, 22, 24,
26–31, 34

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