Appeal No. 2001-1933
Application No. 08/940,058
In addition to the relevant argument above, with respect to rejection III.,
appellants argue that the examiner has failed to comply with the guidelines of section
707.07(d), Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) inasmuch as the grounds
for rejection of each claim have not been delineated with the requisite reasonable
degree of specificity, nor has any such rejection been properly explained. Reply Brief,
page 18. The appellants fairly point out that the examiner's answer, while addressing
the dependent claims generally at pages 5 and 6, does not specifically indicate the
grounds for rejection of each claim with a requisite reasonable degree of specificity.
We remind the examiner, in the interest of due process to appellants, that the grounds
for rejection of each claim should be delineated with a requisite and reasonable degree
of specificity.
We find the examiner has not established on the record before us a prima facie
case of obviousness. The rejections of the claims for obviousness of the claimed
invention is reversed.
Other Issue
The examiner relies on Jacewicz for the disclosure of a crystalline paroxetine
hydrochloride. However, Examples 2 and 3 of Jacewicz also describe a paroxetine
hydrocloride containing about 2%-5.7% of propanol by weight. See also Jacewicz,
page 1, lines 15-21. Upon return of the application to the examiner, the examiner
should fully consider the disclosure of Jacewicz, and the applicability of Jacewicz as a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007