Appeal No. 2001-1909 Page 6
Application No. 09/016,786
DISCUSSION
After carefully reading the rejections, we are compelled to vacate the
rejections and remand the application to the examiner. Our reasons are:
Reason #1
Claim 50 is in need of correction. It is our understanding that Pantothenic
Acid is another name for Vitamin B5, not B3.
Reason #2
There is no antecedent basis in claim 52 for the phrase “the substantially
continuous 24-hour administration” and there is no antecedent basis for the
phrase “the dosage form” in claim 56. This raises a question of definiteness.
Examiner should determine whether the scopes of claims 52 and 56 are
reasonably ascertainable to those with skill in the art (see Ex parte Porter,
25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146(Bd. Pat. Apps. & Int. 1992)) and, if not, then consider
rejecting these claims under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Reason #3
We are not entirely sure what the rejections are.
To understand the statements of the rejections, we have constructed the
following table:
§ 103 Over Koltringer Or in combination Or in Or in combination with
Rejection by itself with Zappia or combination Zappia or Serfontein,
Serfontein, with Zappia or further in view of
Serfontein, Briggs as set forth
further in viewabove, further in view
of Briggs, of either Edgren or
Radebaugh.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007