Appeal No. 2003-0984 Page 5
Application No. 09/418,825
dissolving . . . [the] active substance,” and we agree with appellant that Katz does not
suggest such a limitation. In the portion of Katz that deals with transdermal patches,
Katz specifically teaches that “the backing will usually be impermeable to the drug and
enhancer,” and it is this “impermeability [that] inhibits the loss of the drug and enhancer
and allows the user to rub the patch in order to promote release of the enhancer or drug
from the polymeric particles.” Katz, column 4, lines 10-21.
Moreover, the examiner has not explained how adding a solvent (which Petersen
uses to dissolve the active agent) to Katz’s completely self-contained transdermal patch
would “prevent loss of the active substance and facilitate penetration into the skin”
(Answer, page 5). The matrix of Katz’s patch already contains both a drug and a
“chemical penetration enhancer” which dissolves the drug and “promotes transport of
the drug across [the] skin” (column 2, lines 44-55); any additional solvent or liquid would
seem to be superfluous.
In this case, we agree with Appellants that the examiner has not adequately
explained how the references, taken individually or in combination, would have
suggested transdermal patches of the particular configuration required by the claims,
much less the claimed methods and kits.
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-21,
23-26 and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Katz and Petersen.
REVERSED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007