Appeal No. 95-2924
Application 08/061,356
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Mygind et al. (Mygind) 4,385,048 May 24, 1983
Grohe 4,844,902 July 4, 1989
Purewal et al. (Purewal) 5,225,183 July 6, 1993
(filed Jan. 30, 1991)
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an aerosol
preparation comprising sodium cromoglycate as the active agent
and oleyl oleate as the dispersing agent.
Appealed claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Purewal in view of Grohe. In addition,
claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Purewal and Grohe in view of Mygind.
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions advanced
by appellants and the examiner, including appellants’
specification evidence of nonobviousness. As a result, we concur
with appellants that the claimed aerosol preparation would not
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, for essentially the reasons expressed by appellants
in the principal and Reply Briefs on appeal, we will not sustain
the examiner’s rejections.
Purewal, the primary reference, discloses an aerosol
formulation comprising the presently claimed active ingredient,
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007