Appeal No. 2002-0546 Page 2
Application No. 08/809,379
The examiner relies upon the following references:
Symonds, “The Third Stage of Labor,” Essential Obstetrics and Gynaecology,
pp. 108-109 (1987)
Facts and Comparisons, pp. 117h-118, and 118a (1990)
Sanchez-Ramos et al. (Sanchez-Ramos), “Labor Induction With the
Prostaglandin E1 Methyl Analogue Misoprostol Versus Oxytocin: A Randomized
Trial,” Obstet Gynecol, Vol. 81, pp. 332-336 (1993)
Campos et al. (Campos), “Misoprostol – An Analog of PGE1 – for the Induction
of Labor at Term: Comparative and Randomized Study with Oxytocin,” Revista
Chilena de Obstetricia y Ginecologia, Vol. LIX, No. 3, pp. 190-196 (1994)
Sherwen et al., Maternity Nursing: Care of the Childbearing Family, 3rd Ed.,
pp.676-679, 749-750, 760-761, and 871-872 (1999)
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
the combination of Campos, Sanchez-Ramos, Facts and Comparisons,
Maternity Nursing, and Symonds. After careful review of the record and
consideration of the issue before us, we reverse.
DISCUSSION
Claims 15 and 16 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Campos, Sanchez-Ramos, Facts and
Vomparisons, Maternity Nursing, and Symonds.
Campos and Sanchez-Ramos are cited for teaching “that misoprostol is
known to be useful orally and intravaginally to cause uterine contractions and
induce labor (antepartum).” Examiner’s Answer, page 4. The rejection
acknowledges that “[t]he claims differ in that they are drawn to methods of
limiting postpartum hemorrhage comprising administering misoprostol orally and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007