Appeal No. 2005-2593 24
Application No. 90/005,867
As explained above, Fahy, at most, suggests that one supplemental hormone
(DHEA) is determined to be below a predetermined level. Furthermore, Fahy does not
disclose that any of the supplemental hormones listed in claim 35 are replenished to
predetermined levels. The teachings of Scow, Pierpaoli and Umbreit fail to cure the
deficiencies in Fahy. See section “B.,” supra. Therefore, the rejection of claim 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Fahy, Scow,
Umbreit and Pierpaoli is reversed.
Claim 36 is dependent on claim 35. Thus, the rejection of claim 35 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).
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007