Appeal No. 2006-2546 Page 9
Application No. 10/425,177
however, the examiner should consider whether the prior art as a whole would have
suggested a composition meeting the limitations of the instant claims. For example,
Hoeg3 teaches compositions that, like those of Krezanoski, gel rapidly under
physiological conditions. See, e.g., Hoeg at column 9, line 59 to column 10, line 8.
Unlike Krezanoski, Hoeg expressly suggests including detectable agents in the
disclosed compositions. See, e.g., column 15, lines 17-22. See also Example X
(column 19), in which a fluorescein-containing composition was administered to rabbit
eyes and “monitored using a slit lamp technique”: “an incremental increase in
fluorescence” was detected.
On return of this case, the examiner should consider whether Hoeg or other prior
art would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art the composition defined by
any of the instant claims.
3 Hoeg et al., U.S. Patent 5,441,732, issued August 15, 1995.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007