Appeal No. 2001-1909 Page 8
Application No. 09/016,786
§ 103 Over Koltringer, In view of Zappia or Serfontein,And further in view of Briggs.
Rejection
1 50, 51, and 54
2 52, 53 and 55
3 58, 59-61
§ 103 In view of Edgren or Radebaugh, And further in view of Briggs
Rejection
4 56
5 57, 59-61
We need a clearer explanation of the rejections. This includes making
sure that the statements of the rejections and the discussion of examiner’s
position agree with each other.
Reason #4
From our review of the Examiner’s Answer, not all the limitations in the
claims have been addressed. “All words in a claim must be considered in
judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” In re Wilson,
424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). The limitation in claim
55 of administering the composition twice every 24 hours does not appear to
have been addressed. The claimed administering of a composition comprising
two different components, different in terms of the vitamins and agents used and
their releasability characteristics, set forth in claims 59-61, are not addressed.
Accordingly, it follows that examiner intended to reject the claims under 35 USC § 103 as follows:
· Claims 50, 51, and 54 over Koltringer;
· Claims 52, 53, and 55 over Koltringer as applied to claims 50, 51, and 54, and further in view
of Zappia or Serfontein;
· Claim 56 over Koltringer as applied to claims 50, 51, and 54, and further in view of Edgren or
Radebaugh;
· Claim 57 over Koltringer in view of Edgren or Radebaugh as applied to claims 50, 51, 54 and
56, and further in view of Briggs;
· Claim 58 over Koltringer in view of Zappia or Serfontein as applied to claims 50-55, and
further in view of Briggs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007