Ex parte MATHIOWITZ - Page 6




                 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