Appeal No. 2003-0925
Application No. 09/774,271
The adhesive layer is prepared by mixing PVP, copolymers, and
tableting excipients and binding compounds such as sorbitol, dyes,
flavors, magnesium stearate, mannitol, and the like. See page 19,
lines 16-18. It is this disclosure that the examiner asserts
results in a plasticized PVP because of the addition of sorbitol or
mannitol. At lines 18-19 of page 19, the specification states that
the mixture can be formulated as a dry mix or accomplished by
conventional wet granulation and screening techniques followed by
drying. Example 1, on page 22, indicates that the adhesive layer
includes, as an ingredient, mannitol, from 0 to 80%. Example 2 on
page 23 indicates that the adhesive layer contains 60% non-
plasticized PVP. Example 3 on page 24 indicates that the adhesive
layer contains 60% non-plasticized PVP and 10% of an acrylic
copolymer. Every other example indicates the use of a non-
plasticized PVP. See pages 25-34.
In view of the above disclosure found in appellants’
specification, it appears that although ingredients such as sorbitol
or mannitol can be included (but not required) in the mixture for
making the adhesive layer, the use of a non-plasticized PVP polymer
as a mucoadhesive for a transmucosal delivery device is clearly set
forth.
We note that the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability on any ground rests with the examiner. See
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Also, during patent examination, the pending claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. When the
applicant states the meaning that the claim terms are intended to
have, the claims are examined with that meaning, in order to achieve
a complete exploration of the applicant’s invention and its relation
to the prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In determining the patentability of claims,
the PTO gives claim language its “broadest reasonable
interpretation” consistent with the specification and claims. In re
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007