Appeal No. 95-5076
Application 08/079,220
The reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Won (Won N825) 4,690,825 Sep. 1, 1987
The references discussed by this merits panel are:
Won (Won N675) 5,145,675 Sep. 8, 1992
Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR), 38th ed., Medical Economics Company, Inc., Oradell,
NJ, pages 1437-38 (1984)
Claims 1 through 3, 5, 7 through 12, and 14 through 20 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over the
claims of Won N825. We reverse. In addition, we raise other issues which the examiner
should consider upon return of this application.
Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
The sole reason given in support of the rejection is set forth at page 2 of the
Examiner’s Answer as follows:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably
distinct from each other because the instant application is generic with
respect to the polymer and the patent is generic with respect to the active
agent.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007