Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex Parte Gormley et al - Page 2
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2004 > Ex Parte Gormley et al - Page 2
Appeal No. 2004-0543 Page 2
Application No. 10/010,678
Goldman 5,407,944 Apr. 18, 1995
Rasmusson et al. (Rasmusson) EP 0 285 382 Oct. 5, 1988
Claims 28, 29 and 31-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as anticipated
by Rasmusson, while claims 30 and 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rasmusson and Goldman.
For the reasons which follow, we reverse the rejection of claims 28, 29 and 31-
34 under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b); vacate the rejection of claims 30 and 35-37 under 35
U.S.C. ' 103; and enter a new ground of rejection against claims 28-37 under the
provisions of 37 CFR ' 41.50(b).1
DISCUSSION
Anticipation by Rasmusson
According to the examiner, Rasmusson describes treating androgenic alopecia
Ausing topical 5 alpha reductase inhibitors (e.g. 17-beta-N-monosubstituted-carbamoyl-
4-aza-5alpha reductase inhibitors [like 17β-(N-tert-butylcarbamoyl)-4-aza-5α-androst-1-
ene-3-one]) . . . in the form of cream, lotion or ointment@ (Answer, page 4) and thus
meets Aall the critical elements required by [claims 28, 29 and 31-34]@ (id., page 5).
There is no dispute that Rasmusson describes the 5-alpha reductase inhibitors
required by the present claims, rather, the issue is whether Rasmusson=s Atopical@
administration of the inhibitor meets the present requirement for Atransdermal@
1 The term Avacate,@ as applied to an action taken by an appellate tribunal, means to set aside or
void. Black=s Law Dictionary 1075 (abridged 6th ed. 1991). When the board vacates a rejection in favor of
a new ground of rejection, the original rejection no longer exists. We emphasize that the board does not
take an ultimate position on the correctness of an examiner=s rejection when that rejection is vacated. See
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
