Appeal No. 1997-2512
Application No. 08/118,905
the human mouth; in fact, dependent claim 13 calls for the oral administration of the
biological or pharmaceutical material.
Giving claims 12 and 13 the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification and comparing the subject matter of these claims to Kidder, we find that each
and every claim element is described in the Kidder for the reasons indicated supra.
Accordingly, we determine that the subject matter of these claims is anticipated by
Kidder within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Kidder and the admitted prior art.
Kidder does not disclose that vaccines can be administered according to the
method described therein. However, the appellants have admitted that polio vaccine can
be administered orally by embedding the vaccine in a sugar cube. See page 1, lines 10-
13. Based on these prior art disclosures, it would have been prima facie obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellants’ invention to administer solid polio
vaccine using Kidder’s administration method, motivated by a reasonable expectation of
attaining the benefits described in Kidder (e.g., consistent
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007