Appeal No. 2006-3234
Application No. 90/006,410
Evenstad “as applied to claims 1-33, 37-59, 62-94, 96, 97, 100-122 and 127-
138 and further in view of Otaya et al.” (Answer at 3).
We affirm the rejection made under 35 USC § 102(b). We also affirm
the rejection made under 35 USC § 103(a) in view of Abdallh, Evenstad and
Otaya but, because the examiner did not specifically apply Otaya in rejecting
claims 1-33, 37-59, 62-94, 96, 97, 100-122, and 127-138, we designate the
rejection of those claims as a new ground of rejection. 37 CFR 41.50(b).
II. Findings of fact
The record supports the following findings of fact by at least a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Claim 1 reads as follows:
Pharmaceutical composition comprising metformin as the
active substance and a hydrocolloid forming retarding
agent, wherein the pharmaceutical composition has a
residual moisture content of about 0.5-3% by weight.
2. Claim 1 is representative of claims 1-138.
3. The Appellant’s brief does not include a statement that or
reasons why the rejected claims do not stand or fall together as
to each rejection.3
4. Metformin hydrochloride is called metformin in the ‘106
disclosure. (‘106 at 1:4-6).
3 Moreover, in its reply brief, the appellant did not take issue with the
examiner’s statement that “the appellant’s brief does not include a statement
that this grouping of claims does not stand or fall together and reasons in
support thereof.” (Answer at 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013