Appeal No. 94-1540
Application 07/861,558
Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
As set forth at page 2 of the Appeal Brief, appellants do not contest the merits of
the obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.
Prior Art Rejection
All of the claims on appeal are directed to a composition which comprises from
about 3-15% by weight of a specified copolymer and from about 85-97% by weight of
polyethylene glycol (claim 27) or the combination of that composition and a
medicament (claim 1). Browning describes an ointment formulation in the paragraph
bridging columns 2-3 of that patent as follows:
The ointment formulation of the invention will include a freeze dried
combination of a lower alkyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride copolymer and
gelatin in an amount within the range of from about 25 to about 75% by
weight and preferably from about 35 to about 65% by weight, and an
ointment base in an amount within the range of from about 75 to about
25% by weight and preferably from about 65 to about 35% by weight, and
a water-soluble or water-insoluble medicament in an amount within the
range of from about 0.01 to about 25% by weight, and preferably from
about 0.05 to about 15% by weight, depending upon the particular
medicament employed, all of the above % being based on the total weight
of the ointment formulation.
Blackman describes gel bases for pharmaceutical compositions including those
which are suitable for topical, transmucosal, or oral administration which can comprise
90-99.5% of polyethylene glycol. See, e.g., column 4, lines 6-16 of Blackman.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007