Ex Parte PROKOP - Page 2




               Appeal No. 2003–0681                                                                             Page 2                 
               Application No. 09/169,459                                                                                              


                                                         INTRODUCTION                                                                  
                       The claims are directed to a method of making nanoparticles comprised of a quaternary                           
               polyanionic/cationic complex.  Appellants define a nanoparticle as a “submicroscopic (less than                         
               1 micrometer in size) solid object, essentially of regular or semi-regular shape.” (specification, p.                   
               16, ll. 19-21).  The complex is formed by contacting at least two polyanionic polymers with at                          
               least two cations.  Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:                                            
                       1.  A method of making nanoparticles comprised of a polyanionic/cationic complex,                               
               wherein said nanoparticles do not dissolve in physiological media for at least one day so as to be                      
               useful in drug delivery, said method comprising the steps of:                                                           
                       contacting at least two polyanionic polymers with at least two cations, wherein said                            
               contacting is by a process selected from the group consisting of capturing a mist of droplets                           
               comprising said polyanionic polymers in a liquid comprising said cations; and, capturing a mist                         
               of droplets comprising said cations in a liquid comprising said polyanionic polymers.                                   
                       All of the pending claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of                               
               obviousness, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:                                               
               Andrianov et al. (Andrianov)5,529,777Jun. 25, 1996                                                                      
               Krone et al. (Krone)                            5,700,459               Dec. 23, 1997                                   
               Wang et al. (Wang)                              5,997,900               Dec.  7,  1999                                  
                                                                       ( filed Apr. 16, 1997)                                          
                       The specific rejection is as follows: Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13, 15, and 30 stand rejected under                     
               35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Andrianov and Krone.                                      
                       We reverse for the reasons that follow.                                                                         










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007