Appeal No. 2006-1253 Page 5
Application No. 09/969,451
claimed invention. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by appellants’ arguments
concerning the presence of polyethylene glycol in the composition taught by
Apelian. Brief, page 6. We are also not persuaded by appellants’ assertion that
their claimed composition excludes polyethylene glycol. Brief, bridging
paragraph, pages 6-7.
Against this backdrop we will consider the arguments for and against the
rejection of claims 20, 29 and 37.
Claim 20:
According to appellants (Brief, page 5), “the [e]xaminer has provided no
suggestion or motivation for creating an antibiotic formulation consisting
essentially of florfenicol, a preservative and N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, . . .” as set
forth in claim 20. Therefore, appellants assert that claim 20 is not obvious in
view of Apelian.
As the examiner points out (Answer, page 4), claim 20 reads “on an
antibiotic formulation consisting essentially of a mixture of florfenicol, N-methyl-2-
pyrrolidone and [at least one] preservative. . . .” According to appellants’
specification (bridging paragraph, pages 2-3), “[t]he preservative of the
formulation of the present invention can be, but is not limited to . . . ethyl alcohol .
. . .” As discussed above, the examiner finds that Apelian teaches a composition
comprising florfenicol, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol and a viscosity
reducing agent. As set forth at column 2, lines 18-20 of Apelian, the viscosity
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007