Appeal 2007-0851
Application 10/385,213
have had a reasonable expectation that enzymes could be successfully
administered using this silicone matrix.
Appellants argue that Chien “does not teach or suggest a topical
preparation” (Br. 10 (emphasis omitted)). Instead, Appellants argue that
“Chien is directed to a long-term implantable drug delivery device” (Br. 11).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Chien states that its device is
“adapted in size and shape for implanting . . . on the skin of an animal in
need of prolonged administration of a pharmaceutical” (Chien, col. 1, ll. 30-
34), which is a topical use. The device contains a silicone emulsion having a
continuous silicone phase and a pharmaceutical, such as a hormone, in a
discontinuous aqueous phase (id. at col. 1, ll. 8-16, and col. 5, ll. 1-19).
Powell describes using a similar silicone emulsion, containing a
discontinuous organic phase in a continuous silicone phase, to topically
administer a component, such as a hormone (Powell, col. 3, ll. 29-34, and
col. 16, ll. 53, to col. 17, ll. 39). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Chien’s silicone matrix is capable of being administered topically and
therefore forms a topical preparation. Appellants have provided no evidence
that the silicone matrix described in Chien could not be used as a topical
preparation.
Appellants also argue that Chien “does not teach an internal phase
comprising at least one hydrophilic carrier, at least one hydrophilic
component, and at least one active agent” (Br. 12 (emphasis omitted)).
Instead, Appellants argue that “Chien’s internal phase comprises a
hydrophilic solvent ‘system’ and a pharmaceutical. . . . The hydrophilic
solvent ‘system’ is simply water and a water-miscible solvent such as
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013