Appeal No. 2001-0941 Page 4
Application No. 08/890,705
granulation was not a natural method selected [sic] for the tableting of the St.
John’s Wort supplement.” Id.
Discussion
The claims are directed to the disclosed dry granulation method of making
St. John’s Wort supplements in tablet form. In claim 6, for example, St. John’s
Wort extract, binder, dissolution regulator, and filler, in specified weight percent
ranges, along with something less than all of the glidant and/or lubricant that will
be present in the final composition, are mixed together and formed into a slug.
The slug is then broken down into particulates, the remaining glidant and/or
lubricant is added, and the composition is compressed again to form a tablet.
The examiner rejected the claimed method as obvious in view of a
combination of five prior art references. The examiner’s explanation of the
rejection is not entirely clear regarding which teachings are being combined, from
which references, and based on what motivation. As we understand it, the
rejection relied on Erdelmeier for its disclosure of St. John’s Wort extract in tablet
form, on Lavie, Remington’s, and Evenstad for various aspects of tableting
processes, and on Kikuta for digestible coatings. See the Examiner’s Answer,
pages 4-6. Since the broadest claim on appeal does not require a digestible
coating, we will say no more about Kikuta.
The examiner characterized Erdelmeier as disclosing tableted
compositions comprising 54% by weight St. John’s Wort extract, 18% by weight
cellulose, 16% by weight modified starch, 5.4% by weight sodium carboxymethyl-
cellulose, 0.9% silica dioxide, 0.9% ascorbate, 0.9% magnesium stearate, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007