Ex Parte Maruyama - Page 4


                 Appeal No.  2005-1746                                                        Page 4                   
                 Application No. 09/963,738                                                                            

                 claims differ from the Shimuzu [ ] patent by claiming that the base material is for                   
                 dry direct tableting.” Page 4.                                                                        
                        Based on the panel’s construction of the claim, however, the fact that                         
                 Shimuzu fails to specifically teach that the base material is for dry direct tableting                
                 is irrelevant, as Shimuzu teaches all of the components of the composition of                         
                 claim 1, i.e., a low-substituted hydroxypropyl cellulose impregnated with a sugar                     
                 or sugar alcohol, and thus would anticipate the composition of claim 1.  Thus, we                     
                 need not reach the teachings of Koyanagi, and as we find no error in the                              
                 examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claim 1 is obvious, the rejection                    
                 is affirmed.1                                                                                         
                        Appellant argues that the instant claims require that the low-substituted                      
                 hydroxypropyl cellulose be impregnated with a sugar or sugar alcohol, where,                          
                 upon drying, the sugar or sugar alcohol exists inside the low-substituted                             
                 hydroxypropyl cellulose.  See Appeal Brief, page 4.  Shimuzu, according to                            
                 appellant, uses a fluidized bed granulator in Working Example 6 and others,                           
                 which appellant asserts allows the sugar or sugar alcohol to attach only to the                       
                 surface of the low-substituted hydroxypropyl cellulose.  See id.  Thus, appellant                     
                 contends, the product of Shimizu is structurally different from the claimed                           
                 product.  See id.                                                                                     
                        Appellant’s arguments are not found to be convincing.  Appellant’s                             
                 specification specifically teaches that:                                                              

                                                                                                                       
                 1 In fact, under the construction of the claim set forth here, claim 1 may in fact be anticipated by  
                 the Shimizu reference.                                                                                





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007