Appeal No. 95-2281
Application 07/964,548
The examiner points out that Ayer discloses a fluid
removable polysaccharide (answer, page 2). Appellants’
nonelectrolytes include saccharides (specification, page 10, line
35 - page 11, line 2). However, the polysaccharide in the Ayer
dosage form is in the wall and functions in forming the exit
means (col. 5, lines 37-43). The examiner has not explained, and
it is not apparent, why such a polysaccharide would cause the
hydrophilic polymer in the compartment to precipitate.
The examiner argues that Ayer and appellants both use
hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, and that one would expect similar
ingredients to have similar properties (answer, page 3). The
deficiency in this argument is that the examiner has not
established that the compositions of Ayer and appellants include
similar ingredients, i.e., that they both contain a means for
causing the hydrophilic polymer to precipitate.
The examiner points out that Ayer discloses a viscous
solution-suspension, and argues that a suspension is suggestive
of a precipitation (answer, page 3). This argument is not well
taken because the suspension referred to by Ayer is a suspension
of the drug caused by the presence of polyethylene oxide having
two specified molecular weight ranges (col. 4, lines 30-51).
There is no teaching that the hydroxypropylmethylcellulose
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007