Appeal No. 2006-3313
Application No. 10/423,920
body).
Appellants further argue that Chien “is not in gel form” (Brief, page 6). Appellants
argue that Chien’s tablets/patches would not work as a gel formulation – they use a
different mechanism from the present invention, as the treating agent does not form a
complex with the polymer.” Id.
The examiner contends, however, that Chien discloses a mucilage mixture
(col. 10, line 7) was made prior to incorporating the mucilage mixture into a patch. The
mucilage mixture is similar to Appellants’ gel definition for the instant claims. The
examiner argues that appellants’ gel “does not requires [sic] an emulsion system and is
free of an oil phase.” Answer, page 9. The examiner further argues that Chien’s gel
“has similar ingredients as Applicant and has no oil phase. Therefore, CHIEN does
disclose a gel by Applicant’s definition.” Id.
Appellants provide no convincing rebuttal argument to Chien’s description of a
mucilage mixture and fail to point to any error in the examiner’s responsive reasoning
with respect to the disclosure of Chien. In view of the above, the rejection of the claims
over Chien is affirmed.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1-19 and 24-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Martin in
view of Krishna and Moro.
According to the examiner, Martin discloses bioadhesive therapeutic
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013