SCIENTIFIC DATA IN COSMETIC PATENT PROGRAM 75 LITERATURE CITED (1) Sidgwick, N. V., "The Electron Theory of Valence," London, Oxford University Press (1932), p. 274. (2) Mellor, J. W., "A Comprehensive Treatise on Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry," Vol. VII, London, Longroans, Green and Co. (1930), pp. 143-148, 154-156. (3) Sidgwick, N. V., "The Chemical Elements and Their Compounds," Oxford, The Clar- endon Press (1950), p. 645. (4) Ibid., p. 644. (5) Weiser, H. B., "Inorganic Colloid Chemistry," New York, Vol. II, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1935), pp. 264-266. (6) German, F. H., and Daniels, F., "Outlines of Physical Chemistry," New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1946), p. 259. (7) Thomas, A. W., and Owens, H. S., •. •tm. Chem. $0% 57, 2131-2135 (1935). (8) Idem, 1825. (9) Wainer, E., U.S. Patent 2,316,141, April 6, 1943. (10) Keil, H., Wasserman, D., and Dawson, C. R., Ind. Med., 14, 825 (1945). (11) Titanium Alloy Mfg. Division of the National Lead Co., unpublished reports. (12) Cronk, G. A., and Naumann, Dorothy E., •7. Lab. Clin. Med., 37, 909-913 (1951). (13) Harrisson, J. W. E., Trabin, B., and Martin, E. W., •7. Pharmacol., 102, 179-184 (1951). (14) Blumenthal, W. B., and Leonard, C. S., "An Investigation of the Physiological and Therapeutic Properties of Zirconlure Compounds," Report to the XIhh International Congress of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Sept. 13, 1951. (15) Draize, J. H., Woodward, G., and Calvary, H. O., y. Pharrnacol., 82, 377-390 (1944). (16) Leberco Laboratories, Roselle Park, N.J., Assay No. 24268. (17) Idem, 24269. (18) Idem, 24270. (19) Blumenthal, W. B.,[nd. Eng. Chem., 40, 510-512 (1948). (20) Blumenthal, W. B., ztrn. Dyestuff Reptr., 37, 285-286 (1948). THE NEED FOR SCIENTIFIC DATA IN A COSMETIC PATENT PROGRAM* By ']'HOMAS CIFELLI, J•.. Newark, N. 5 t. ALL THAT WE shall consider here are the patent possibilities open to the cosmetic industry and what is required for the full attainment of these possibilities. Among the avenues of patent protection open to the cosmetic industry are those involving: (1) New cosmetic chemicals. (2) New cosmetic preparations involving: (a) All old ingredients. (b) At least one new ingredient. (c) All new ingredients. (3) New uses of old chemicals or compositions. (4) Processes for making cosmetic chemicals or preparations involving: (a) New chemicals or preparations. (b) Making old chemicals or preparations. (c) Uses of old chemicals or preparations. * Presented at the May 15, 1953, Meeting, New York City.

76 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS Of course, in common with all other fields of endeavor, cosmetic patents have to be based on novel, useful, and inventive subject matter. 1. P^TENT PROTECTION ON NEW COSME*m CH•.M•C^LS With regard to new cosmetic chemicals, novelty is shown by comparing the allegedly new compounds with those of the prior art. Unless the prior art knew of identical compounds, the requirement for novelty is satisfied. Regarding use or utility, a mere general statement is all that is usually required: for example, "X (the allegedly new compound) is useful in filter- ing out undesirable rays of the sun." However, where you do not know any actual use of the claimed compound and it is merely a new intermediate in a synthesis, you have a difficult problem. Terms such as "X is useful in organic synthesis," or "X is an intermediate for perfumes" are no longer generally held to satisfy the utility requirement. Satisfying the utility requirement is not presently a problem in the cosmetic field but is a very real problem in the drug field. In thilt field many companies may be working on a synthesis involving a large number of steps and as each step is completed patent applications are filed on the intermediates right away (in order to obtain the earliest possible filing date). When the applications are filed on the intermediates, the chemists cannot be sure that they have the right synthesis in mind, and cannot, of course, take the time and expend the money to have the intermediates tested for all possible uses. There is not believed to be any present satisfac- tory solution to this problem from the drug industry's point of view, and the cosmetic industry ought to be glad that this is not one of its "head- aches." The question of what constitutes invention is one which is always de- batable. There is no positive definition of what constitutes invention, only a large number of so-called negative rules. That is to say, these negative rules tell you what is not invention. No one, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has thus far come up with a satisfactory positive rule or a state- ment of what invention is. As a practical matter, if your compound is new and the Examiner cannot find a homologue, isomer or other closely re- lated compound, you should have no great difficulty in obtaining allowance. However, as a practical matter, most new compounds are chemically closely related to known ones, and the Examiner will therefore generally reject you, on the so-called Hass and Susie doctrine (1). You will then have to show that your allegedly new compounds possess unusual and un- expected beneficial properties over those of the cited compound. The Patent OfFice adopts an "I'm from Missouri" attitude, and the best way to establish your point is by experimental evidence. This means that you have to indulge in chemical reasoning to determine what data might swing the Examiner to your side, follow this by chemical work, follow this by