Appeal No. 2004-0543 Page 4
Application No. 10/010,678
Claims 28, 29 and 31-34 specifically require transdermal administration of the
inhibitor. We agree with the examiner that Atransdermal administration is broader than
skin-patch administration@ (Answer, page 8), but disagree with the examiner=s assertion
that Aappellants prefer the claim language to be understood as >use of [a] transdermal
skin patch=@ (id.).2 Rather, appellants= position is essentially that Atransdermal (>through-
the-skin=) administration constitutes a separate and distinct claim limitation from [ ]
topical (>cutaneous=) administration of 5alpha-reductase 2 inhibitors@ (Brief, page 6), and
Athe two routes of administration are in fact not interchangeable@ (id., page 7), because
transdermal administration is systemic and continuous, while topical administration is
local and intermittent (id., pages 7 and 8).
2 The examiner=s interpretation of appellants= argument appears to stem from appellants=
statement on page 7 of the Brief that their Aoriginal patent disclosure [(at page 6, lines 22-24 and 32-34)]
associates topical administration with >solution[s], cream[s], ointment[s], gel[s], lotion[s], shampoo[s] or
aerosol formulation[s]= . . . [while] transdermal administration is linked to the use of transdermal skin
patches only.@
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007