Appeal No. 2001-2157 Page 6
Application No. 08/918,741
(1) Claims 1 and 3 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Jones, Hannay, and Evans;
(2) Claims 1 and 3 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Jones, Hannay, Evans, and Takeuchi;
(3) Claims 1 and 3 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Jones, Hannay, Evans, Takeuchi, Kai,
Yasuhiko, Matsuda, Uekama, Yano, and Ronsen; and
(4) Claims 8 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Jones and Cameron.
Deliberations
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials: (1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal;
(2) applicants' Appeal Brief (Paper No. 12); (3) the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13);
and (4) the above-cited prior art references.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
each of the examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Discussion
A crystalline form of raloxifene was known in the art at the time applicants'
invention was made. See the background section of the specification, page 3, line 21
through page 4, line 20; and see, Jones, column 20, Example 27. With respect to each
ground of rejection, the dispositive question is whether it would have been obvious to
prepare raloxifene "in an amorphous form" as recited in the appealed claims? We
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007