Appeal No. 94-1982
Application 07/862,665
given that, after ingestion of the device, there is a time delay of drug
delivery while the osmopolymer imbibes fluid. There is no drug delivery
until this occurs. The desirability of having such a ‘delay’ is alluded to by
Wong in reciting that the osmotic device can deliver active agent a
controlled rate and for a particular time period (column 3, lines 58-64).
It is not apparent on what basis the examiner has determined that Wong administers a
second composition which comprises the drug after the first drug-free composition is at
least partially released from the compartment as required by the claims on appeal.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.2
REVERSED
)
Richard E. Schafer, Vice Chief )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Teddy S. Gron )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Paul L. Sabatine
Alza Corp.
P.O. Box 10950
2We note in passing that claim 19 appears to be an improper dependent claim.
Claim 19 purports to “replace” the drug of claim 18 with a new drug. If appellants truly
intend to “replace” the drug of 18 with a second new drug, then claim 19 does not
further limit claim 18 as required by the statute.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007