Appeal No. 1999-0494
Application 08/482,768
pharmaceutical to retard oxidation." The record copy of the Merck Index is difficult to
read due to the photocopy supplied by the examiner but it does not appear to use the
word "pharmaceutical."
In any event, the examiner's statement of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is fundamentally deficient in that it does not address the subject matter of the claims as
a whole. As seen from claim 13, the composition must be "capable of crossing the
blood-brain barrier." Nowhere in the Examiner's Answer does the examiner explain how
any of the references relied upon teaches or suggests this aspect of the claimed subject
matter.
The examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we make the following new ground of
rejection.
Claims 13-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As evidence of
anticipation, we rely upon Johnson.
1. Claims 13-15
For ease of explaining the facts and reasoning in support of the new ground of
rejection, we will consider these three claims as a group.
In considering claims 13, 14 and 15 together, it is apparent that cromolyn sodium
meets the functional requirements of both claims 13 and 14 in terms of inhibiting
formation of amyloid fibrils as confirmed by the results of Example 2 of the present
specification.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007