Appeal No. 2003-0816
Application No. 09/693,254
c) a plasticizer, and
d) a filler,
wherein said coating crumbles and/or erodes upon exposure to the
aqueous medium, at a rate which is equal to or slower than the rate at
which the matrix erodes in the aqueous medium, allowing controlled
exposure of said surface of the matrix to the aqueous medium.
Since we reverse the Examiner’s rejection, we need to address only the
independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 43, 52 and 54.
The claimed subject matter of claims 1, 43, 52 and 54 requires a matrix and a
coating on the matrix. All of the claims require the coating to crumble and/or erode
upon exposure to the aqueous medium, at a rate which is equal to or slower than the
rate at which the matrix erodes in the aqueous medium.
The Examiner asserts the claimed invention is obvious over the combination
of Conte, WO ‘066 and Banker. Specifically, the Examiner asserts that “[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the matrix in [WO] ‘066 in the
composition of Conte et al. for the beneficial effect of a constantly eroding [the]
matrix surface and to include lauryl alcohol in [to] the ‘support’ layer for its
beneficial effects as an additive in view of Banker.” (Answer, p. 4).
In holding an invention obvious in view of a combination of references, there
must be some suggestion, motivation, or teaching in the prior art that would have
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007