6. Applicant acknowledges, however, that "the
optimum daily dosage of carbidopa-levodopa must ultimately be
determined by titrating each patient ***" (specification, page 3,
lines 15-16).
The claims
7. Claim 1 and 11-12 are on appeal.
8. In their Supplemental Appeal Brief (Paper 20),
applicant does not single out dependent claims 11-12 for separate
consideration.
9. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11-12 stand or fall
together and we consider the appeal on the basis of claim 1.
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
10. Claim 1 reads (indentation and matter in
[brackets] added):
A method for treating Parkinson's disease using an oral
dosage formulation comprising
[1] an immediate release layer of 10-25 mg of
carbidopa and 50-200 mg of levodopa and
[2] a sustained release layer of 25-75 mg of carbidopa
and 100-400 mg of levodopa
whereby, following administration, carbidopa and levodopa
are available for rapid and sustained therapeutic action.
The examiner's rejection
11. The examiner has rejected claims 1 and 11-12 "as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings" of (1) Dempski,
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007