Appeal No. 2001-2157 Page 5
Application No. 08/918,741
Frusemide," J. Pharm. Pharmacol., Vol. 44, pp. 627-633 (1991)
Takeuchi et al. (Takeuchi), "Progress of Powder Technology. Particle Design and
Manufacturing," Chem. Eng., Vol. 37, pp. 496-501 (1992)
Uekama et al. (Uekama), "Inhibitory Effect of 2-Hydroxypropyl-$-cyclodextrin on
Crystal- growth of Nifedipine During Storage: Superior Dissolutin and Oral
Bioavailability Compared with Polyvinylpyrrolidone K-30," J. Pharm. Pharmacol., Vol.
44, pp. 73-78 (1991)
Yano et al. (Yano), "Crystal Forms, Improvements of Dissolution and Absorption of
poorly Water Soluble (R)-1[2,3-Dihydro-1-(2'-Methylphenacyl)-2-Oxo-5-Phenyl-1H-1,4-
Benzodiazepin-3-YL]-3-(3-Methylphenyl)Urea (YM022)," Yakugaku Zasshi, Vol. 116,
no. 8, pp. 639-646 (1996)
Yasuhiko et al. (Yasuhiko), "Characterization of amorphous ursodeocycholic Acid
Prepared by Spray-Drying Technique," JICST 03282368 (1992)
The Rejections
In section (10) of the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13), the examiner does not
set forth each prior art rejection of record. Rather, the examiner refers to multiple
rejections in previous Office actions, Paper Nos. 4 and 8; characterizes those rejections
as though they constituted a single "rejection;" and summarizes that "rejection" in two
paragraphs. This is manifestly improper. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1208 (7th ed., July 1998) ("Only those statements of grounds of rejection
appearing in a single prior action may be incorporated by reference. An examiner's
answer should not refer, either directly or indirectly, to more than one prior Office
action.").
As best we can judge, the appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007