Appeal 2007-0851
Application 10/385,213
at 5). The Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to those skilled
in the art “to include the enzymes of Powell et al. in the composition of
Chien et al.” (id. at 5-6). In particular, the Examiner argues that Chien
“explicitly contemplate[s] compositions for application to localized areas of
the body, or to the surface of body parts,” that Powell “suggest[s] including
enzymes in silicone emulsion compositions for application to the skin,” and
that, therefore, it would have been obvious “to modify the composition of
Chien et al. to contain enzymes” (id. at 10-11).
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
the combination of Chien and Powell, as evidenced by Webster’s
Dictionary, would have made claim 1 obvious. Chien describes “a
pharmaceutical delivery device comprising a biologically acceptable silicone
polymer matrix contained within [a] biologically acceptable polymer
container, the . . . silicone polymer matrix having microsealed compartments
. . . containing a pharmaceutical in a hydrophilic solvent system” (Chien,
col. 1, ll. 8-16). Chien states that the device is adapted “for implanting in a
body cavity or surgically under or on the skin of an animal in need of
prolonged administration of a pharmaceutical” (id. at col. 1, ll. 30-34
(emphasis added)). Chien also states that a “wide variety of pharmaceuticals
may be administered,” including estrogens, progestins, androgens, diuretics,
vitamins, and anti-protozoal agents (id. at col. 4, l. 62, to col. 5, l. 29).
Chien states that the hydrophilic solvent system “comprises water and
water miscible solvents” (id. at col. 3, ll. 20-30). To form the silicone
polymer matrix, Chien describes dispersing a “saturated solution of
pharmaceutical in water and hydrophilic solvent . . . throughout liquid
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013