Appeal No. 2003-0925
Application No. 09/774,271
The examiner also recognizes that Biegajski teaches a
plasticized PVP. Answer, pages 7 and 9. The examiner asserts,
however, that while appellants claim a non-plasticized PVP,
appellant is “merely assigning a different name to the PVP of the
instant claims”. Answer, page 7. The examiner refers to page 19
and 20 of appellant specification and states that the examples
disclose that plasticizers are included in the composition. The
examiner relies upon Remington and Rouffer to show that in fact the
ingredients disclosed in appellants’ specification are plasticizers,
and their inclusion results in a PVP composition that is
plasticized. The examiner states “[w]hether the PVP itself is non-
plasticized is of no bearing since its inclusion with known
plasticizers would render it plasticized. Accordingly, it is the
position of the examiner that the PVP of the instant claims is
indeed plasticized”. Answer, pages 7-8.
Each of the independent claims requires a “non-plasticized” PVP
polymer. Appellants’ specification discloses that it has been
discovered that PVP, without the presence of a plasticizer, provides
benefits such as reduction in unpleasant flavor and oral irritation,
simplication and reduction of the cost of manufacture, and a
mucoadhesive that does not interact with ionic active substances.
See page 6, line 14 through page 7, line 21. Appellants device can
be either a laminated film or tablet, having at least 2 layers,
including (1) a basal layer of a pressure-sensitive, water-soluble,
non-plasticized PVP mucoadhesive composition, which may or may not
contain an active agent, and (2) an active agent containing water
soluble polymer layer. See pages 18, line 19 through page 19, line
2.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007