Appeal No. 2005-1535
Application No. 10/049,379
In view of the above, we agree with appellants that the examiner has failed to
provide evidence to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Nor does the examiner
provide motivation for combination of the cited references. The examiner has not
indicated why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate
glycerol into an oxaliplatinum composition. In our view, while Schlipalius relates to an
intravenous composition comprising glycerol, Schlipalius does not suggest that adding
glycerol to oxaliplatinum would increase their concentration or solubility while
maintaining shelf life. While Schlipalius may have indicated to one of ordinary skill in
the art that beta carotene could be delivered intravenously in glycerol, in view of the
solubility spectrum of oxaliplatinum as set forth in the specification, we do not find
Schilpalius provides motivation to deliver oxaliplatinum in glycerol or that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with an expectation of success.
In view of the above, the rejection of the claims for obviousness over Ibrahim in
view of Schlipalius is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 15-17 for obviousness over Ibrahim and
Schlipalius is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007