The examiner relies upon the following references:
Greenberger et al. (Greenberger) “Readministration of Spironolactone in the Spironolactone-
Intolerant Patient,” NER Allerge Proc, pp. 343-345 (1986)
Remington’s Pharmaceutical Sciences, XIVth edition, Mark Publishing Company, pp. 867-868
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Greenberger or
Remington’s Pharmaceutical Sciences. After careful review of the record and consideration of the
issues before us, we affirm the rejection over Greenberger, and thus need not reach the rejection
over Remington’s Pharmaceutical Sciences.
DISCUSSION
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over either
Greenberger or Remington’s Pharmaceutical Sciences. As we are affirming the rejection over
Greenberger, we need not reach the rejection over Remington’s Pharmaceutical Sciences, and thus
we limit our analysis on the rejection over Greenberger.
According to the Answer:
Greenberger [ ] disclose[s] that readministration of spironolactone is done by
serially increasing doses from 1mg to 400 mg. The instant claims differ over
Greenberger [ ] in reciting an article of manufacture comprising a pharmaceutical tablet
or
capsule for oral ingestion comprising spironolactone in an amount within a range of 10
to 20 mg. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
administer a tablet or capsule having 10 to 20 mg or to break the available 25 mg tablet
into smaller pieces, including a piece within the recited range of 10 to 20 mg. One
would be motivated to do so because of the desire to desensitize the spironolactone
intolerant patient.
Examiner’s Answer, pages 3-4.
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007