Appeal No. 98-1486
Application 08/417,628
Application 08/417,625. Claims 35 and 36 also stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lilly.
OPINION
Appellants do not challenge the provisional obviousness-
type double patenting rejections. We therefore summarily
affirm these rejections. As for the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, we have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that this rejection is not well founded. We
therefore do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner argues that because clavulanates were known
to be antibiotics, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use them in conventional form for
administration (answer, page 4). This argument is not
convincing because the examiner has not established that
clavulanates were known in the art to be among Lilly’s “other
antibiotic substances” or to have any other use. Thus, it is
not apparent why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007