Ex Parte Ullah et al - Page 8


            Appeal No. 2006-2471                                                         Page 8              
            Application No. 09/824,364                                                                       

            two together in a single unit, as done for other cardiovascular drugs, and would have            
            been motivated to have done so with these.  A suggestion, teaching, or motivation to             
            combine the relevant prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior       
            art, but may be implicit from the prior art as a whole.  In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88,       
            78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).                                                           
                   In addition to combining the two drugs in the same unit, Shell also explains why          
            each drug would be separately mixed with its own carrier.                                        
                         Different drugs have different biological half-lives which determine                
                   their required frequency of administration (once daily, four times daily,                 
                   etc.).  Thus, when two or more drugs are co-administered in one                           
                   conventional medication unit, an unfavorable compromise is often                          
                   required, resulting in an underdose of one drug and an overdose of the                    
                   other.  One of the advantages of the dosage forms of the present                          
                   invention is that they can be used to deliver multiple drugs without                      
                   requiring such compromises.  For example, in an alternative embodiment,                   
                   a plurality of drug-containing, spherical, spheroidal- or cylindrical-shaped              
                   particles are provided, some of the particles containing a first                          
                   drug/polymer composition designed to release the first drug at its ideal                  
                   rate and duration (dose), while other particles contain a second                          
                   drug/polymer composition designed to release the second drug at its ideal                 
                   rate and duration.                                                                        
            Column 9, lines 48-63.                                                                           
                   Appellants did not explain why the aforementioned disclosures in Eisman and               
            Shell were inadequate to provide motivation to establish prima facie obviousness of the          
            claimed subject matter.  Appellants stated that Shell was “totally different” from the           
            claimed subject matter because it was “not concerned with using a statin and aspirin in          
            the same dosage form.”  Brief, page 8, 4th paragraph.  However, the examiner did not             
            rely on Shell for teaching the statin/aspirin combination.                                       








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007