Appeal No. 94-2113
Application 07/801,207
specification says that the pravastatin to captopril ratio will
[not may] be employed in a weight ratio to each other within the
range of from 0.001:1 to about 1000:1 and preferably from about
0.05:1 to about 100:1 (specification, page 16, lines 9-12). Yet
the claim covers any ratio. Thus, no claim is commensurate with
the scope of any showing made in the specification.
On this record, there is no basis upon which to find that
all or even a large number of, the numerous possible combinations
described in the specification and covered by claim 1 produce
synergistic and unexpected results. Because, applicants have not
made a showing commensurate in scope with the breadth of claim 1
or, for that matter, any other claim, the exception to the
general rule does not apply.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 4, 11 to
16 and 19-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art should be
affirmed.
Our rationale supporting the rejection differs from the
rationale advanced by the examiner since no clear reasoning was
given as to why the evidence of alleged unexpected results was
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we designate our affirmance as a new
ground of rejection made under the provisions of 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.196(b) (amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule notice,
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007