Appeal No. 2006-2797 Page 13
Application No. 09/341,821
(Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, we find that the nature of the problem – to treat a burn wound –
would have suggested to the skilled worker (e.g., a healthcare provider) that Jass’s
wound gel bandage requires sterilization, and would have been motivated to accomplish
it according to Sperry, as a choice of a conventional technology for accomplishing
sterilization. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that claims 9, 19, and 20 are obvious over
the combination of Sperry and Jass. Because our reasoning in affirming this rejection
differs from the Examiner, we designate it as a new ground of rejection to provide
Appellants with a fair opportunity to respond to it.
In response to arguments made by Appellants distinguishing Sperry on the basis
that it does not teach “dispensing multiple doses,” we concur with the Examiner that
Sperry is “relied upon for the solely teaching of the method of making the aerosol.”
Answer, Page 10.
Other issues
Appellants have admitted in their application that barrier aerosol vessels were
known in the prior art. Specification, pages 2-4. Upon return of this application to the
technology center, we suggest that the Examiner reconsider the prior art as it pertains
to claims 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, and 18 and make specific findings on whether any of the prior
art barrier aerosol vessels are “self-sealing” and for use with a single composition in
contrast to Jass’s teaching. Among the prior art, we call the Examiner’s attention to
pages 1680-81 of Remington,4 particularly Fig. 7 which shows a barrier aerosol vessel
with a metering valve.
4 Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy, Vol. II, pp. 1680-81 (1995)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007