Appeal No. 2001-1235 Paper 14
Application No. 08/951,943 Page 5
claims on appeal, i.e., claims 1, 11 and 14. In addition, the examiner has not pointed
out, and we do not find, where Campbell discloses or suggests additionally claimed
limitations of (i) placing the film or lamina between two non-porous substrates to protect
the film or laminate from environmental exposure or (ii) heating scopolamine containing
laminates to 75-90o C for 2-10 minutes as expressly argued by appellants (brief, pp. 9-
10). Furthermore, it is unclear whether, or on what basis, the examiner might consider
heating scopolamine laminates to 75-90o C for 2-10 minutes as claimed to be
functionally equivalent to heating laminated scopolamine delivery devices to 60o C for
24 hours after packaging as disclosed by Campbell. (The examiner has not separately
argued that the claimed device is identical or substantially identical with the device of
Campbell). Finally, we noted that Campbell is expressly directed to preventing
formation of crystalline hydrates (e.g., Campbell at c. 3, ll. 17), whereas appellants
invention relates to preventing formation of anhydrous scopolamine base in transdermal
devices (appellants’ specification at p. 5, ll. 14-19).
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26 as
anticipated by Campbell is reversed.
OTHER MATTERS
Upon return of this application to the jurisdiction of the examiner, it is suggested
that both appellants and the examiner review the pending claims for proper antecedent
basis. For example, independent claim 1 recites “a predetermined temperature” in line
3 and “the desired temperature” in line 6, while dependent claim 3/1 recites “said
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007