Ex Parte AVERBACK - Page 5


              Appeal No. 1999-0494                                                                                       
              Application 08/482,768                                                                                     

              under the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, not the                              
              dependency requirement of the fourth paragraph of this section of the statute.                             
                     The examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, is reversed.                      
              2.     Obviousness                                                                                         
                     The examiner's facts and reasoning in support of the rejection under this section                   
              of the statute are:                                                                                        
                     Merck teaches purpurogallin used as a pharmaceutical to retard oxidation,                           
                     Johnson teaches at column 1, lines 25-30 the use of cromolyn sodium as an                           
                     antiasthmatic drug and Haber et al at column 1, lines 4-67 teaches the use of                       
                     pyrimethamine in a pharmaceutical composition.  The compositions of claims 13-                      
                     15 and the mode and means of administration of claims 17-21 are obviated                            
                     under 35 U.S.C. 103 since an intended use limitation does not render the                            
                     composition unobvious.  See In re Skoner, 186 USPQ 80, (CCPA 1975); In re                           
                     Kalm 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967); In re Halley 132 USPQ 16 (CCPA 1961).                                 
                            For these reasons the claimed subject matter is deemed to fail to                            
                     patentably distinguish over the state of the art as represented by the cited                        
                     references.  The claims are therefore properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.                        

              Examiner's Answer, pages 3-4.  The examiner further explains the rejection stating "the                    
              rejection of claims 13-21 [sic, 13-15, 17-21] under 35 USC 103 (a) is deemed proper                        
              since the compositions claimed are taught by the art."  Id., page 5.                                       
                     The examiner's position on appeal as to why the subject matter of any individual                    
              claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art under this section of the                
              statute is difficult to discern.  By the examiner's statement, that the "compositions                      
              claimed are taught by the art" bespeaks of an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C.                       
              § 102, not an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  Furthermore, the                               
              examiner's fact finding is open to question in regard to certain of the applied references.                
              For example, the examiner states that the Merck Index teaches "purpurogallin used as a                     


                                                           5                                                             



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007