art teaches formulation comprising multiple release layers to
provide for immediate and sustained release of actives, including
levodopa and carbidopa". Supplemental Appeal Brief, page 3.
One skilled in the art armed Conte would have been aware of
problems associated with the Dempski manner of administration of
drugs. Conte describes Dempski's problem, as well as its
solution. Furthermore, Conte explicitly describes solution of
Dempski's problem with respect to administration of levodopa and
carbidopa, the dosages suggested by Dempski, to treat Parkinson's
disease. Hence, Conte provides a reason, suggestion, teaching,
incentive or motivation to replace the Dempski device with the
Conte device. Insofar as we can tell, applicant has done exactly
what Conte teaches. In other words, applicants have used a known
technique in a known manner to address a known problem to obtain
an entirely expected result. Cf. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982,
987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (the claim elements
appear in the prior art in the same configurations, serving the
same functions, to achieve the results suggested in the prior
art).
2. Applicant's arguments
A first argument made by applicant is interesting. The
argument seems to be that the prior art acknowledged by Conte
or cited against Conte, establishes that Conte must have
discovered something different from what Conte says he discovered
(Supplemental Appeal Brief, pages 3-4). Unfortunately for
- 12 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007