Ex Parte GUERET - Page 4



              Appeal No. 2003-0984                                                                  Page 4                
              Application No. 09/418,825                                                                                  
              combination in the manner claimed.’”  Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern Calif. Edison Co.,                        
              227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2000)                                                  
                     Here, the examiner’s statement of the rejection leaves a great deal to conjecture.                   
              All of the claims on appeal stand rejected as unpatentable over the combined teachings                      
              of Katz and Petersen, but it appears that the examiner believes that Katz anticipates                       
              the limitations of all of the claims with the exception of those claims drawn to methods                    
              of use or kits.  According to the examiner, Katz is only “deficient in the fact[ ] that it does             
              not include a kit and method of application in the invention” (Answer, page 4), and “[i]t                   
              would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art . . . to modify the                         
              transdermal drug delivery system disclosed by Katz [ ] by including the patch and the                       
              solvent in a kit and devising a method of administration according to the teachings of                      
              Petersen . . . to prevent loss of the active substance and facilitate penetration into the                  
              skin” (Answer, page 5).                                                                                     
                     Nevertheless, appellant argues that, unlike the drug in the claimed patches, the                     
              drug in Katz’s patch “is always suitable for migrating through the matrix without the                       
              addition of liquid to the patch” because the enhancer, which “dissolves the drug for                        
              transport of the drug from the patch to the skin,” “is part of the patch . . . upon                         
              manufacture” (Brief, page 7).  In addition, appellant argues that “Katz does not suggest                    
              that [the patch’s] backing material[ ] should be porous or capable of containing a liquid                   
              suitable for dissolving an active substance, as in the patches of all of the rejected                       
              claims” (Brief, page 7).                                                                                    
                     It may or may not be that Katz’s active substance is contained in the matrix in                      
              such a way that it is not suitable for migrating (unless and until it is contacted by the                   
              enhancer).  We need not resolve this issue, however, because all of the claims on                           
              appeal also require a porous backing “capable of containing a liquid suitable for                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007