Appeal No. 1997-2512
Application No. 08/118,905
of a biological or pharmaceutical material to an animal. It then follows that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have found any motivation or suggestion to combine Frenkel and
Cassou in the manner as suggested by the examiner.
Accordingly, we hold that the subject matter of claims 14 and 15 would not have
been prima facie obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined
teachings of Frenkel and Cassou.
The examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
New Grounds of Rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
We enter the following new grounds of rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b):
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the
disclosure of Kidder.
Kidder discloses a method for administering drugs, as follows:
“It is an object of the invention to eliminate the intermediate step of
removing the drug dose contained within a unit package for administering
the dose to the patient. The method of the invention comprises opening
the package and using the opened package for delivering the drug dose
directly into the mouth of the patient. After opening the package at both
ends, one end is placed in a liquid and the other end is placed in the
patient’s mouth. The patient then draws the liquid through the package
for delivering the dose and liquid into the mouth. This triggers the natural
swallowing reflex and allows for easy swallowing of the liquid and the drug
dose entrained within the liquid flow.”
See column 3, lines 28-40, together with Figures 1 through 8.
Kidder’s package is initially sealed, with the ends being sealed by providing
bonded end joints, and is preferably constructed to have a tubular cross-sectional shape.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007