Appeal No. 2007-0307
Application No. 09733,640
body and be later implanted into the body, much in the same manner as the
composition of Lundgren. Thus, we do not find that Lundgren teaches away
from the claimed composition (claims 1 and 38) or method (claim 34). The
rejection of the claims for anticipation over Lundgren is affirmed.
Obviousness
2. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 17-18, 34, 38, 49, 51-53, 55-56, and 58-72 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(b) over Shukla in view of Lundgren.
Shukla teaches a biodegradable vehicle containing a drug and at least two
plasticizers (solvent) and a biodegradable polymer. The biodegradable polymer
may be two different biodegradable polymers with varying crystallinity and
amorphous states to tailor the release characteristics of the delivery system.
The examiner acknowledges that while Shukla teaches the blending of
polymers according to their properties to manipulate release rate, Shukla does not
exemplify the use of a polymer blend consisting of amorphous polymer and
crystalline polymer. Shukla exemplifies an amorphous polymer. Shukla discloses
that its biodegradable composition is injected (col. 9, l. 24).
The examiner relies on Lundgren for its disclosure "that a small amount of
crystalline polymers to amorphous polymers drastically reduces swelling of the
material." Answer, page 5.
Thus, with respect to claims 1 and 38, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
Shukla and Lundgren and add a biodegradable polymer to a crystalline powder.
Answer, page 6. "One would have been motivated to add a crystalline polymer to
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013