Appeal 2007-1082
Application 10/327,383
1 Furthermore, appellants have not shown that use of the Tenengauzer
2 process would not result in granules having a Carr’s Compression Index of
3 less than 34%. In re Best, supra.
4 Appellants also argue: “In addition, the claimed method uses ‘a
5 granulating amount’ of ‘a non-aqueous granulating liquid.’ One of ordinary
6 skill in the art would not interpret such terms as involving adding enough
7 liquid to fully dissolve azithromycin.”
8 The terms “a granulating amount” and “granulating liquid” are
9 defined in the specification (page 7) to permit particle adherence or
10 agglomeration, without significant dissolution of azithromycin.
11 According to Step 2 of Tenengauzer, Preparation 7 is “mixed” with a
12 liquid and granulated.
13 Insofar as we can tell, Tenengauzer does not say, and appellants have
14 not established, that significant dissolution of azithromycin takes place in the
15 Tenengauzer process.
16 Moreover, with respect to the composition claims, appellants have not
17 told us where the record establishes that dissolution makes any difference as
18 to a composition.
19 Appellants’ argument is an argument of counsel not supported by any
20 reference to objective evidence in the record. We decline to search the
21 record to determine if there might be evidence which might support
22 counsel’s argument. 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(a)(1)(vii) (2006) (appellant’s brief is
23 to set out the contentions of appellant with respect to each issue and “the
24 basis therefore, with citations of the … parts of the record relied on.”). See
25 also Bamberger v. Cheruvu, 55 USPQ2d 1523, 1537 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013