Appeal No. 2006-2546 Page 5
Application No. 10/425,177
phrase limits the additive to an additive that is capable of providing detection of the gel
inside a breast milk duct.
The examiner has not adequately explained how any of the additives described
in Krezanoski would be capable of providing detection of the gel inside a breast milk
duct. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie
case that Krezanoski anticipates claim 10. We therefore reverse the rejection of
claims 10 and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Krezanoski.
3. Snow
The examiner rejected claims 10-13, 17-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Snow.2 The examiner argued that “Snow discloses [a] pharmaceutical
composition comprising [a] physiologically tolerable contrast agent that contains at least
two chromophores and at least one polyalkylene oxide moiety (column 9, lines 1-12).”
Examiner’s Answer, page 4. “[I]n one embodiment the chromophoric group is attached
to a surfactant molecule (column 9, lines 13-15). The surfactant is disclosed to be
polyalkyleneoxide block copolymer that may be branched (column 9, lines 52-57);
PLURONIC and TETRONIC block copolymers are used with the chromophores
(column 10, lines 35-44).” Id. The examiner argued that “[t]he chromophores of
Snow . . . would provide detection of the gel inside the target breast milk duct.” Id.,
page 6. In addition, the examiner argued that Snow, at column 54, lines 11-21,
contemplates administering the composition as an aqueous solution or suspension. Id.,
page 8.
2 Snow et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,350,431, issued February 26, 2002, from an application filed October 28,
1999.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007