Appeal No. 95-2876
Application 07/906,403
3. § 112, Fourth Paragraph
We shall sustain the examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 23 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.
Appellants have not disputed that claims 23 through 25 fail to
further limit the subject matter of their parent claims. See
Brief in its entirety.
4. § 103 Based On Appelgren
The examiner has rejected claims 20 and 22 through 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
disclosure of Appelgren. The examiner states (see Answer,3
page 5) that:
Comparing claim 20 to Appelgren et al., the
patentees (esp. abstract; col. 2, lines 38-48; col.
3, lines 6-42; and Ex’s. 1, 7 + 10-13) disclose
spherical or nearly spherical solid pharmaceutical
preparations for administration in dosage unit form
3Appellants submit at page 5 of their Brief that claims
20 and 22 through 24 do not stand or fall together. In
response, the examiner argues that the claims do stand or fall
together. See Answer, page 3. Since appellants do not
contest the examiner's position, claims 20 and 22 through 24
will stand or fall together.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007