Appeal No. 2001-1235 Paper 14
Application No. 08/951,943 Page 3
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Campbell. We reverse.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. We make
reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper 12, mailed September 29, 1999) for the
examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper 11,
filed May 28, 1999)2 for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Discussion
Campbell discloses a method for manufacturing transdermal delivery devices
having at least one lamina formed from a dispersion of a liquid drug capable of forming
a crystalline hydrate comprising (i) forming a laminate, (ii) cutting the laminate to shape
the device, (iii) heating the device, preferably after packaging, to a predetermined
temperature, preferably above the melting point of the hydrate, for a period of time
sufficient to prevent formation of said crystalline hydrate, and (iv) cooling the heated
device to ambient conditions (abstract; c. 3, ll. 16-43). Campbell further discloses
heating five-layer laminated scopolamine delivery devices to 60o C for 24 hours after
packaging the devices and then cooling them to ambient conditions (EXAMPLE 1, c. 3,
l. 65 - c. 4, l. 38; see also c. 3, ll. 43-48).
According to the examiner, “Applicants’ broad recitation of the heating step is
2 Two additional copies of appellants’ brief were filed September 30, 1999 as Paper 13.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007