Appeal No. 1996-0729
Application No. 07/859,572
II. Rejection of composition claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Legrand
II.
and
III. Rejection of composition claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuya,
Ahluwalia, Herdewijn, Van Aerschot, Harmenberg and applicants’ admission in view of Legrand
II.
First, anticipation requires that all elements of the claimed invention be described, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15
USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). Second, to be anticipatory,
the reference need not teach the appellants’ invention, it is only necessary that the claim language “read
on” something disclosed in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., supra.
According to the examiner, Legrand II anticipates the composition of claim 7 because
Legrand et al teach 2' , 5' - dideoxyadenosine (page 1104, column 2,
paragraph 3) in an aqueous buffer system (page 1104, column 1, paragraph 4). The
skilled artisan would have seen the Legrand et al aqueous buffer as a pharmaceutical
carrier or excipient. An active ingredient residing in a pharmaceutical carrier or
excipient defines a pharmaceutical composition, thus, the Legrand et al teaching
anticipates Appellants’ claim 7. [Answer, page 12]
Indeed, the specification broadly defines acceptable excipients to include water containing buffering
agents (para. bridging pages 9-10).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007