Appeal No. 2005-2593 12
Application No. 90/005,867
single prior art reference.”).
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10. Therefore, the rejection of claim 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fahy is also reversed. See 37 CFR § 1.75(c)
(2002).
D. Rejection of claims 10, 11 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 10, 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Fahy, Scow, Umbreit and Pierpaoli.
Again, the examiner relies on the teachings of Scow, Umbreit and Pierpaoli to
supplement the teachings of Fahy. However, for the reasons discussed above, Scow,
Umbreit and Pierpaoli fail to cure the deficiencies of Fahy. See section “B.,” supra.
For this reason, the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Fahy, Scow, Umbreit and Pierpaoli is
reversed. Claims 11 and 13-17 are dependent on claim 10. Therefore, the rejection of
claims 11 and 13-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Fahy, Scow,
Umbreit and Pierpaoli is also reversed. See 37 CFR § 1.75(c) (2002).
E. Rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Fahy, Scow, Umbreit and Pierpaoli. Claim 25 reads as follows:
25. A hormone replenishment kit comprising human growth
hormone and at least two of the supplemental hormones selected from the
group consisting of sex hormone, melatonin hormone, adrenal hormone,
thyroid hormone, and thymus hormone, said human growth hormone and
said at least two supplemental hormones present in an amount sufficient
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007