Ex Parte RONSEN et al - Page 3




             Appeal No. 2001-1933                                                                                     
             Application No. 08/940,058                                                                               

             Traue, “Spray Embedding of Low-solubility Drugs Part 3: Release of Active Ingredient                     
             From Nitrazepam-Polyvinylpyrrolidone Solids Dispersions,” Acta Pharm. Technol., Vol.                     
             35, No. 3, pp. 155-159 (1989)                                                                            
             Byron et al. (Byron) ?Drug Carrier Selection - Important Physicochemical                                 
             Characteristics,” Respiratory Drug Delivery V, Program Proc, [Int. Symp.], pp. 103-113                   
             (1996)                                                                                                   
             Matsuda et al. (Matsuda), ?Amorphism and  Physicochemical Stability of Spray-Dried                       
             Frusemide,” J. Pharm. Pharmacology, Vol, 44, pp. 627-633 (1992)                                          

             Grounds of Rejection                                                                                     
                    I.  Claims 1-3, 15-17 and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                        
             obvious over Leonard in view of Borodkin, Lieberman, Kai or Matsuda.                                     
                    II.  Claims 1, 15, 16 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious                   
             over Jacewicz in view of Lieberman, Kai or Matsuda.                                                      
                    III.  Claims 1 - 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over                       
             Leonard, Jacewicz, Barnes, Pathak in view of Lieberman, Kai or Matsuda in further                        
             view of Lin, Traue, Uekama, Byron, Ares, Francese, Damani, or Tovey.                                     


                                                   DISCUSSION                                                         
                    In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the                       
             appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                    
             respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.                                     
                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                     
             the appellants regarding the noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's                        
                                                          3                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007