Appeal No. 2004-2078 Page 2
Application No. 09/754,509
The examiner relies on the following references:
Woodle et al. (Woodle) 5,013,556 May 7, 1991
Kanno et al. (Kanno) 5,374,715 Dec. 20, 1994
Ghyczy et al. (Ghyczy) 5,741,513 Apr. 21, 1998
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-17 and 23-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As evidence of obviousness the examiner relies on the combination of Ghyczy
and Woodle.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies on the combination of Ghyczy, Woodle and
Kanno.
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
The combination of Ghyczy and Woodle:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), “Ghyczy discloses alcoholic
aqueous gel compositions containing phospholipids… [but does not] teach the
inclusion of [a] polymer-lipid complex in the formulations.” In addition, the
examiner finds (Answer, page 4), Woodle teach that the inclusion of membrane-
rigidifying components, e.g., a lipid-derivatized polymer, in liposomes increases
the circulation time of the liposomes in the bloodstream.
Based on this evidence, the examiner concludes (id.), “[i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include lipid-PEG [a lipid-
derivatized polymer] in the [liposomal gel] compositions of Ghyczy …” to increase
the circulation time of Ghyczy’s liposomal gel compositions. For their part,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007