Appeal No. 2006-0760
Application No. 10/312,417
Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 20-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) as obvious over
Levin in view of Lee. 3
Claim 20 is drawn to a dermal therapeutic system that consists of a) a
support layer which is impermeable to the Cox-2 inhibitor, celecoxib or
rofecoxib; b) a reservoir or matrix layer that contains the Cox-2 inhibitor; c)
optionally a control membrane; d) a contact adhesive layer to attach the
dermal therapeutic system to the skin; and e) a protective layer. According
to the Examiner, the only difference between the claimed subject matter and
Levin is that Levin does not describe the specific elements a) through e) of
the dermal therapeutic system recited in claim 20 (Answer 6). However, the
Examiner states that Lee teaches a drug delivery device for administering
NSAIDS that comprises the elements required by claim 20 (id.). The
Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
formulate the COX-2 inhibitors including celecoxib and
rofecoxib (NSAIDS) in a transdermal delivery device taught by
Lee et al. because [the] transdermal device . . . delivers any
NSAIDS in general to treat pain and . . . [increase] compliance
for the user. One would have been motivated to formulate
COX-2 inhibitor in [a] transdermal delivery system taught by
Lee et al. in order to successfully treat patients suffering from
pain and to increase the compliance.
(Id.)
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Lee teaches
a dermal therapeutic system that contains the same elements which are
recited in claim 20. However, he argues that the phrase “consists of” recited
3 Lee et al. (Lee), U.S. Pat. No. 5,284,660, issued Feb. 8, 1994.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013