Appeal 2007-0185
Application 10/305,281
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). As set forth in In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), “[I]t is not inventive
to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In
addition, in at least one case the Federal Circuit has held that the experimentation
needed to arrive at a drug dosage "was nothing more than routine." Merck v.
Biocraft, 874 F.2d 804, 808, 10 USPQ2d. 1843, 1847 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In view of the above, the rejection of the claims for obviousness in view of
Joshi is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sherwood is
affirmed. The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Joshi is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
lbg
LOUIS J. WILLE
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY
PATENT DEPARTMENT
P O BOX 4000
PRINCETON NJ 08543-4000
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013