Appeal No. 2003-0925
Application No. 09/774,271
Beginning on page 14 of the brief, appellants’ common argument
for all of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections pertains to the claim
requirement of a device for transmucosal delivery of active
substances comprising a non-plasticized PVP polymer. Each of the
independent claims recites this feature.
Beginning on page 14 of the brief, appellants argue that
there is a lack of motivation to modify or combine the references.
Appellants state that the claims of the present invention
specifically recite a transmucosal delivery device that contains at
least 50% by weight of a non-plasticized PVP polymer. Appellants
state that Biegajski teaches, at column 7, lines 7-11, “[i]n one
general aspect, the invention features a water soluble pressure-
sensitive adhesive including a water-soluble polymer that is made
tacky (that is it is rendered pressure-sensitive) at room
temperature by addition of a water-soluble plasticizer that is
miscible with a polymer.” Appellants state that a number of other
statements about the inclusion of a plasticizer in the composition
are found throughout Biegajski. Appellants argue that the continual
recitation and examples of combining a plasticizer with PVP in order
to form a pressure sensitive adhesive layer not only fails to
provide any teaching or suggestion that a non-plasticized PVP could
be used, but such repetition and consistency also teaches away from
such a premise. Brief, pages 14-15.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007