Appeal No. 1996-1934
Application 07/884,218
acid is used to retain the medicament in the peritoneal cavity at closure, a result
inconsistent with removal of the solution prior to closure.”
Page 3 of the specification states “[i]n the practice of the invention, the
hyaluronic acid solution and the medicament is applied topically to the peritoneal
cavity . . ..” Page 13 of the specification states “[t]he HA is administered to the site
of surgical trauma within the peritoneal cavity topically. Such topical administration
can be by lavage, dripping on the site from a syringe or other suitable
container/applicator, by catheter administration, or the like.”
The specification refers to topical administration, therefore, contrary to
appellant’s argument we see nothing inconsistent with the specification in removing
excess solution from a topically administered composition prior to closing. In
addition, as the examiner points out at page 5 of the Answer, “instant claims do not
exclude removing hyaluronic acid solution prior to closure of peritoneal cavity.”
Therefore, appellant’s argument concerning “leaving a solution of hyaluronic acid
and medicament in the peritoneal cavity” is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that Della Valle fails to include the peritoneum in the list of
the various areas of the body upon which topical treatment using a solution of
hyaluronic acid and a medicament can be made. See, Reply Brief, page 2. It is
well-established that before a conclusion of obviousness may be made based on a
combination of references, there must have been a reason, suggestion, or
motivation to lead an inventor to combine those references. Pro-Mold and Tool Co.
v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007