Ex Parte GUERET - Page 3



              Appeal No. 2003-0984                                                                  Page 3                
              Application No. 09/418,825                                                                                  
              such as woven and non-woven fabrics and polymeric films, such as polyethylene,                              
              polypropylene, and silicone rubber; metal films and foils; and the like” (column 4, lines                   
              17-21).  “[I]t is the view of the examiner that the non-woven fabrics disclosed by Katz [ ]                 
              as suitable backing material can be porous.”  Answer, page 3.                                               
                     Petersen describes “a method of delivering a drug, a drug delivery system and a                      
              drug delivery kit” (Answer, page 4).  According to the examiner, “the drug delivery kit                     
              includes a first patch containing one or more [proteolytic] enzymes and a second patch                      
              containing one or more drugs,” and “a typical patch . . . includes a backing, a reservoir                   
              to contain the enzyme or the drug preparations, a membrane to contain and release the                       
              contents of the reservoir and a protective strip” (id.), and Petersen “teaches that the                     
              enzyme and the drug are admixed with a liquid, such as water or ethanol” and “the                           
              reservoir can be divided into two compartments, one containing the active ingredient in                     
              a dry, stable form, and the other containing the solvent to be mixed with the active                        
              ingredient” (id.).  Turning to the Petersen reference, we note that the backing is                          
              described as an “occlusion means” (column 6, lines 18-20), and may be aluminized                            
              plastic, plastic film or Bioclusive™ tape (column 6, lines 20-22).                                          
                     “The PTO has the burden under section 103 to establish a prima facie case of                         
              obviousness.  It can satisfy this burden only by showing some objective teaching in the                     
              prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would                   
              lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references.”  In re Fine,                     
              837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).  An                          
              adequate showing of motivation to combine requires “evidence that ‘a skilled artisan,                       
              confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the                              
              claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art references for                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007