Appeal No. 1996-0605
Application 07/989,593
Lichtenberger 5,032,585 Jul. 16, 1991
Motoyam et al. (Motoyam) “Synergistic Inhibition of Oxidation in Dispersed
Phosphatidylcholine Liposomes by a Combination of Vitamin and Cysteine”
Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Vol. 270, No. 2 (1989)
Ondrox “Unimed”, Technical Bulletin, (1992)
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 8, 11, 14 and 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lichtenberger.
Claims 8, 11, 14 and 23-321 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the advertisement for ONDROX (UNIMED) in combination
with Motoyama.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to the appellant’s specification and claims, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. We make reference to
the Examiner’s Answer (Answer)(Paper No. 22, mailed June 23, 1995) for the
examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection. We further reference
1 We note that page 7 of the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 22, mailed June 23,
1995) does not identify the claims that pertain to this rejection. However,
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 20, received April 6, 1995) and the Final Rejection
(Paper No. 11, mailed July 7, 1994) treat claims 8, 11, 14 and 23-32 as if they
were rejected under this combination of references. Therefore, we will review
the rejection of claims 8, 11, 14 and 23-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the advertisement of ONDROX (UNIMED) in combination with
Motoyama.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007