Appeal No. 2001-0941 Page 8
Application No. 08/890,705
Answer, pages 5-6), and Evenstad is cited for its disclosure of hydroxypropyl-
methylcellulose as a sustained release agent (Examiner’s Answer, page 6).
The examiner cites these references, correctly, as teaching various
limitations of the present claims, but provides no coherent rationale for why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine those
elements. For example, the examiner cites Remington’s as disclosing
conventional dry granulation tableting, and teaching that this method is
“advantageous when the tablet ingredients are sensitive to moisture or are
unable to withstand elevated temperatures during drying.” Examiner’s Answer,
page 5. The instant specification, though, expressly notes that these conditions
do not apply to the ingredients combined in the claimed process. See page 9.
In addition, Evenstad’s disclosure of hydroxypropylmethylcellulose as a
sustained-release agent is limited to tablets made by wet granulation. See
column 1, line 63 to column 2, line 2 (emphasis added): “We have discovered a
sustained release tablet comprising hydroxypropyl methylcellulose with
sustaining properties . . ., sufficient water soluble pharmaceutical binder to permit
wet granulation, an amount of internal hydrophobic component effective to permit
wet granulation, and a water soluble medicament.” The examiner has not
explained how this disclosure would have led those skilled in the art to use
hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in the claimed dry granulation process.
Thus, even if the cited references disclosed the elements of the instant
claims, the examiner has not adequately explained why those of skill in the art
would have been led to combine those elements. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007