Appeal No. 2001-1265
Application No. 08/612,074
associate solution, not the liposome system per se.@ Brief, page 5. Appellants argue
that in order to form the liposome according to Weder 1, the solubilizing agent is
removed from associate solutions. Id. Thus, appellants argue that Weder 1 Adoes not
teach or suggest the range of the mass ratios of phospholipid to non-phospholipidic
substance or the range of liposome diameters claimed in the present invention.@ Brief,
page 6.
In view of the above, we find the examiner has failed to present sufficient
evidence of knowledge in the art of the claimed mass ratio of phospholipid to non-
phospholipidic substance to support a prima facie case of obviousness. The examiner
has not come to grips with Appellants' argument that Weder 1 does not suggest the
specific limitations of the claims. Nor has the examiner adequately explained how
Weder 1 would have suggested making liposomes, in the recited size range of 35 to 90
nm, using a solution containing phospholipids and a cholic acid derivative in the recited
mass ratio of 1:0.001 to 1:0.1.
With respect to Weder 2, Appellants argue that the mass ratio is Asignificantly
above the range being claimed in the present invention. Brief, page 6. Regarding
Lichtenberg, Appellants argue that Lichtenberg does not disclose liposomes having the
claimed diameter and discloses a mass ratio Asignificantly below the lower limiting mass
ratio value@. Brief, page 8. These arguments remain unrebutted by the examiner.
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response to an
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007