Ex Parte Gormley et al - Page 2



              Appeal No. 2004-0543                                                                 Page 2                
              Application No. 10/010,678                                                                                 
              Goldman                                 5,407,944                   Apr. 18, 1995                       
              Rasmusson et al. (Rasmusson)              EP 0 285 382                 Oct. 5, 1988                        
                     Claims 28, 29 and 31-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as anticipated                      
              by Rasmusson, while claims 30 and 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as                         
              unpatentable over Rasmusson and Goldman.                                                                   
                     For the reasons which follow, we reverse the rejection of claims 28, 29 and     31-                 
              34 under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b); vacate the rejection of claims 30 and 35-37 under 35                          
              U.S.C. ' 103; and enter a new ground of rejection against claims 28-37 under the                           
              provisions of 37 CFR ' 41.50(b).1                                                                          
                                                     DISCUSSION                                                          
              Anticipation by Rasmusson                                                                                  
                     According to the examiner, Rasmusson describes treating androgenic alopecia                         
              Ausing topical 5 alpha reductase inhibitors (e.g. 17-beta-N-monosubstituted-carbamoyl-                     
              4-aza-5alpha reductase inhibitors [like 17β-(N-tert-butylcarbamoyl)-4-aza-5α-androst-1-                    
              ene-3-one]) . . . in the form of cream, lotion or ointment@ (Answer, page 4) and thus                      
              meets Aall the critical elements required by [claims 28, 29 and 31-34]@ (id., page 5).                     
                     There is no dispute that Rasmusson describes the 5-alpha reductase inhibitors                       
              required by the present claims, rather, the issue is whether Rasmusson=s Atopical@                         
              administration of the inhibitor meets the present requirement for Atransdermal@                            
                                                                                                                        
                     1 The term Avacate,@ as applied to an action taken by an appellate tribunal, means to set aside or  
              void.  Black=s Law Dictionary 1075 (abridged 6th ed. 1991).  When the board vacates a rejection in favor of
              a new ground of rejection, the original rejection no longer exists.  We emphasize that the board does not  
              take an ultimate position on the correctness of an examiner=s rejection when that rejection is vacated.  See







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007