Appeal No. 2006-0760
Application No. 10/312,417
transdermal administration suggests, contrary to Appellant’s argument, that
the person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably believed that
transdermal delivery was not limited by a compound’s structure.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 20 as
obvious over Levin in view of Lee. Because claims 21-27 were not
separately argued, they fall with claim 20.
OTHER ISSUES
PCT International Publication WO 00/00120 was cited in an
Information Disclosure Statement filed December 23, 2002. It is in the same
patent family as the Murdock6 patent, having a filing date of at least Jun. 29,
1999, which is earlier than the filing date of the instant application.
Murdock discloses a transdermal composition which comprises a non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory compound. Celecoxib and Vioxx® are
specifically mentioned (Col. 2, ll. 48-54; col. 8, ll. 44-47). In Example 73,
celecoxib is formulated with solvents and carriers as a gel for transdermal
use (Col. 31, ll. 40-45). The Examiner should consider whether this
example (and/or other disclosure in Murdock) anticipates and/or makes
obvious the subject matter of claim 13 (and other pending claims), alone, or
in combination with other prior art.
We also draw the Examiner’s to U.S. Pat. 5,466,8237 which discloses
celecoxib, a compound of Formula I (Col. 4, ll. 64-65). The patent discloses
that Formula I compounds can be administered topically (Col 47, l. 24). The
Examiner should consider whether this disclosure anticipates and/or makes
6 Murdock et al., U.S. Patent 6,479,074 B2, issued Nov. 12, 2002.
7 Talley et al. U.S. Patent 5,466,823, issued Nov. 14, 1995.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013