Appeal No. 95-5076
Application 08/079,220
examiner and appellants limited their consideration of this reference to obviousness-type
double patenting grounds is not apparent.
Won N825 indicates that dermatological agents may be used as the active agent in
that invention (column 3, lines 54-55). PDR provides evidence that retinoic acid was a well
known dermatological agent prior to the earliest filing date to which the present claims may
be entitled. Upon return of the application, the examiner should consider Won N825 as a
prior art reference in conjunction with references such as PDR and determine the
patentability of the subject matter on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3. Won N675.
Won N675 issued from one of the stated parent applications. Whether it is prior art
against the present claims will not be apparent until the examiner determines the effective
filing date of the claims on appeal. What is apparent, however, is that Won N675 presents
a significant issue of obviousness-type double patenting. The claims of Won N675 are
directed to a method of preparing a delivery system for an active substance which
comprises forming solid porous particles as in Won N825, followed by the impregnation of
those particles with an active substance. As seen from claim 12 of Won N675, the active
substance may be a retinoid. PDR establishes that at the time of the present invention one
of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use retinoic acid as the retinoid in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007