Appeal No. 2003-0925
Application No. 09/774,271
The examiner relies upon the following references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Yukimatsu et al. (Yukimatsu) 4,740,365 Apr. 26, 1988
Stanley et al. (Stanley) 5,288,497 Feb. 22, 1994
Biegajski et al. (Biegajski) 5,700,478 Dec. 23, 1997
Acharya et a. (Acharya) 6,210,699 Apr. 03, 2001
Rouffer 6,221,391 Apr. 24, 2001
“Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy,” 19th Edition, Page
1390, Volume II (1995)
On page 4 of the brief, appellants state that the rejected
claims are considered to be separately patentable and that the
claims do not stand or fall together. On page 2 of the answer, the
examiner disagrees with appellants’ statement because “applicant
only sets forth reasoning as to why the rejected claims are
allowable over the cited art and does not appear to set forth
reasons in support to why certain rejected claims are separately
patentable.” We will limit our consideration of the rejected claims
before us to only those claims which the appellants have contested
with reasonable specificity. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re Wood, 582 F.2d
638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007