Appeal No. 95-2876
Application 07/906,403
Appellants do not dispute that Appelgren teaches using
microcrystalline cellulose, which is a carbohydrate polymer,
as a pharmaceutically indifferent core. Rather, appellants
argue that Appelgren's examples do not suggest its
pharmaceutically indifferent core to be a polymer. In so
arguing, appellants not only ignore that example 1 of
Appelgren employs in its spherical granules microcrystalline
cellulose, but they also fail to consider Appelgren as a
whole, see In re Uhlig, 376 F.2d 320, 153 USPQ 460, (CCPA
1967). When Appelgren is considered as a whole, we agree with
the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ a carbohydrate polymer,
such as microcrystalline cellulose, as the pharmaceutically
indifferent core of Appelgren's spherical granules.
Appellants argue that "Appelgren does not disclose or
suggest incorporating a substance [i.e., a drug] in the core
or the coating, as required by the instant claims." See
Brief, page 19. Appellants, however, acknowledge that
Appelgren's spherical granules contain "no drug...incorporated
in the core or the coating, as required by the instant claims,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007