Appeal No. 2006-3313
Application No. 10/423,920
We do not find the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
on the evidence before us. To begin, contrary to the examiner’s indication, we do not
find that Martin describes, either in the abstract or at col. 51, lines 35-50, a bioadhesive
therapeutic composition wherein the bioadhesive agent is Carbopol™ and
polycarbophils. Furthermore, we agree with appellants’ argument that Martin teaches
the use of an oil phase and that oil is prohibited as an ingredient in the present claims.
Brief, page 10.
In addition, Krishna discloses “calcium polycarbophil-alginate” which appellants
argue is completely different than polycarbophil and “does not provide sufficient
bioadhesion or ionic nature for use in the invention.” Reply Brief, page 4. Appellants
argue Krishna does not describe the use of the polymer polycarbophil. Id. The
examiner has not rebutted this argument.
Furthermore, while Moro teaches the use of polycarbophil in a mucoadhesive
coating solution (Examples 1 and 2 at col. 13), Moro fails to overcome the noted
deficiency of Martin and its use of an oil phase in its wound healing compositions, which
ingredient is prohibited by the pending claims.
Thus, neither Krishna nor Moro overcomes the deficiencies of Martin, and the
rejection of the claims for obviousness is reversed.
Other Issue for Consideration
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013