Appeal 2007-1378
Application 10/327,459
1 Loom Co. v. Higgins, 15 Otto (105 U.S.) 580 (1881) ((1) "The loom itself
2 was old. Every part of it was familiar to every loom manufacturer and to
3 every weaver."; (2) an inventor may begin a description of an invention at
4 the point where his invention begins, and describe what he has made that is
5 new, and what it replaces of the old and that which is common and known is
6 as if it were written out in the patent and delineated in the drawings).
7 Curatolo is a primer on what one skilled in the art knows about
8 making tablets. See also the background of the invention as described in the
9 specification.
10 Curatolo tells us that one skilled in the art seeking to make a tablet
11 containing azithromycin may dry granulation or direct compression and that
12 depending on the precise properties sought knows how to make processing
13 choices.
14 On the basis of the evidence before us, we have no difficulty
15 concluding that appellants have done nothing more than make an
16 azithromycin dry blend using known techniques to get exactly what one
17 skilled in the art would expect.
18 Appellants disagree maintaining that the art must, in appellants’
19 words, have “some suggestion or motivation” to combine the teachings of
20 Singer and Curatolo. Appeal Brief, page 16.
21 We have no trouble finding that the teachings of Singer and Curatolo
22 can be combined—the Curatolo glove fits right on the Singer hand.
23 Singer is said to fail to describe all the limitations of the claims. The
24 argument is a side show apart from the main event. If Singer described all
25 the limitations, then the Examiner would have made an anticipation
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013