Appeal No. 2006-1304 Page 14
Application No. 10/214,058
amlodipine. Examiner’s Answer, page 12. The examiner’s rejection does not address
any of the limitations present in claim 144 by virtue of its dependence on claim 139;
specifically, that the composition be in the form of an aqueous suspension comprising a
sweetener, a flavoring agent, a coloring agent, an emulsifier, and a suspending agent.
Because the examiner has not adequately explained why a composition meeting all the
limitations of claim 144 would have been obvious to those skilled in the art, we reverse
the rejection of claim 144.
Summary
The prior art relied on by the examiner would have suggested the composition
defined by claims 1 and 2 to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
application was filed. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1-3, 118-143, and 145-
147 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner’s rejection of claim 144, however, does not
adequately state a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed
composition; we therefore reverse the rejection of claim 144.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007