Appeal No. 2006-0760 Application No. 10/312,417 in claim 20 excludes the presence of CMO (Br. 8-9). “Given that CMO is a critical element of Levin's invention, there is no motivation or suggestion to remove this critical element from Levin's composition nor is there any reasonable expectation of success that Levin’s invention would be practicable without the presence of CMO.” (Id. at 9.) Appellant also argues that Example 3 of Levin is a “teaching away” from using a Cox-2 inhibitor in the absence of CMO. He asserts that, without CMO, it was necessary to increase the doses “to two to three times the initial dose in order to maintain adequate symptomatic relief.” (Br. 10.) At these dosages, side effects, including “dizziness, nausea and abdominal pain” were observed. (Id.) The addition of CMO permitted the doses to be decreased to their initial levels. (Id.) Finally, Appellant asserts that Lee does not teach or suggest the use of Cox-2 inhibitors alone for transdermal administration. Br. 10. “Lee offers no additional insight into Levin’s problems with the use of COX-2 inhibitors alone and are directed toward transdermal delivery of nicotine and melatonin, two drugs which differ greatly both structurally and functionally from the compounds used by Levin.” (Br. 10-11.) After considering the record before, it is our opinion that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the subject matter recited in claim 20 is obvious. As indicated by the Examiner, Lee generally teaches that any NSAID can be administered transdermally (Answer 5). Lee at col. 8, ll. 3. Because celecoxib and rofecoxib are known NSAIDS, their administration via a transdermal delivery device is merely following Lee’s suggestion. While Lee does not explicitly disclose celecoxib and rofecoxib, a reference 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013