Appeal No. 93-3228
Application 07/796,023
Claims 7-11, 14, 21, 22, 25 and 28-31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kent. Claim 7
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by EP
‘949. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Kidron. Claims 7-13, 21-24 and 28-31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jang in
view of Kent. We vacate all of the stated rejections and,
pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), enter a new
ground of rejection of claims 7-14, 21-25 and 28-31 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicant regards as his invention. We also include a
statement under 37 CFR
§ 1.196(c).
OPINION
A. The New Ground of Rejection Under 37 CFR §
1.196(b)
The limitations of appealed claim 7 are that the implant
is bioerodible with sustained action and ?consists essentially
of? a compressed admixture of an effective amount of a solid
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007