applicant it does not matter whether Conte correctly understood
the precise point of "novelty" of his invention. We are not here
to resolve the patentability of the Conte invention; rather, we
are here to resolve the patentability of applicant's claimed
invention in light of what is described by Dempski and Conte.
A second argument made by applicant is that Conte does not
describe the dosages set out in applicant's claim 1 (Supplemental
Appeal Brief, page 4). In making the argument, applicants
apparently overlook the dosages described by Dempski. See
Finding 15. Clearly, one skilled in the art charged with
knowledge of both Dempski and Conte would have immediately
appreciated the fact that the overall dosages described by
Dempski would be used in divided form in the Conte environment.
Applicant cannot avoid the force of the examiner's obviousness
position by discussing only Conte and playing ostrich with
Dempski. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882
(CCPA 1981) (one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
individual references where a combination of references is used
to support rejection); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757, 159 USPQ
725, 728 (CCPA 1968) (obviousness rejection cannot be overcome by
attacking references individually).
A third argument seems to be that the Conte layers "comprise
a sustained release core of carbidopa-levodopa overcoated only
with an immediate release layer" (Supplemental Appeal Brief,
paragraph bridging pages 4-5 (emphasis in original)). We concede
to having some difficulty understanding the precise point trying
- 13 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007