Appeal No. 2006-2546 Page 6
Application No. 10/425,177
The examiner argued that polyalkylene oxide meets the limitations recited for the
polymer of claim 10. Examiner’s Answer, page 9. The examiner also noted that Snow
states that the compounds can include polymers such as “polyvinylpyrrolidone, . . .
polyvinyl alcohol (column 44, lines 51-67), . . . hyaluronic acid, dextran, polydextrose . . .
(column 46, lines 23, 25, 50), [and] polyethylene glycols (PEG); and these are some of
the polymers recited in claims 16 and 17.” Examiner’s Answer, paragraph bridging
pages 5 and 6. The examiner reasoned that:
Since the polymer of Snow and the claims are the same, these same
polymers would have the function or properties of solubility and molecular
weight ascribed in claim 10 and the composition containing these same
polymers and chromophores would have the mutually exclusive [sic,
recited?] properties capable of undergoing the same gel transition inside a
target breast milk duct within the 30 minutes of administration/delivery.
Id.
Appellants argue that “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in Snow et al. of a
polymer that is a liquid in a solvent and is able to undergo a gel transition.” Appeal
Brief, page 6. In particular, Appellants argue that “[o]ne skilled in the art would
recognize that the concentration and weight of a polymer are important parameters in
determining the ability of a polymer to undergo a solid-liquid transition. The mere
mention of a polymer such as polyalkylene oxide is insufficient to determine whether or
not the polymer has the ability to undergo a gel transition.” Appeal Brief, page 7.
We agree with Appellants that the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case that Snow describes a composition that “undergoes a gel transition inside a target
breast milk duct within about 30 minutes of delivery of the composition to the target
duct.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007