Appeal No. 95-4823
Application 07/856,012
means that for Pino Capote’s purposes this parameter was only measured for 20 minutes.
Second, claim 11 on appeal does not require any particular length of time for intraocular
pressure to be reduced as a result of the claimed treatment. Thus, a procedure which falls
within the scope of claim 11 on appeal would not be outside the scope of claim 11 on
appeal merely because that procedure resulted in reducing intraocular pressure for less
than 20 minutes.
Appellants also criticize Pino Capote in that the reference does not purportedly
describe an ophthalmic composition as required by claim 11 on appeal. Appellants point
out that Pino Capote describes a solution of diazepam and dimethylacetamide, which
appellants assert is not suitable for administration into the eye for therapeutic purposes.
Upon return of the application the examiner should determine whether the specific solution
used by Pino Capote would reasonably be considered an “ophthalmic” solution. In making
this determination, the examiner should take into account that the cats treated in the
reference were “decerebrated.” If the specific solution used in the reference can not be
reasonably described as “ophthalmic” the examiner should consider whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to formulate diazepam in an ophthalmic
form in view of the successful results reported by Pino Capote.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007