Appeal No. 2005-1452 Page 3
Application No. 09/915,549
(Answer, pp. 4-9). We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 12-15, 19-66, 143, 144, 146
and 148-150. However, we reverse the rejections of claims 2-11.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(mailed October 20, 2004) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the Brief (filed June 08, 2004) and the Reply Brief (filed December 20, 2004)
for the Appellant’s arguments there against.
We initially note that Appellant asserts that for purposes of appeal claims 1,
12-15, 19-66, 143, 144, 146 and 148 stand or fall together and claims 149 and 150
stand or fall together. However, claims 2-11 and claims 64-66 do not stand or fall
together. (Brief, p. 11). We will direct our comments to claim 1 and address the
remaining claims to the extent that they have been argued separately in the Brief.
OPINION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 12-15, 19-66, 143, 144, 146 and 148-150
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davis alone or Kaufman alone.
(Answer, pp. 4-9). We affirm for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add the
following for emphasis.
Appellant argues “[a]ccording to the present invention, it is surprisingly possible
to enter the supersaturated concentration range without precipitation of drug crystals
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007