Appeal 2007-0851
Application 10/385,213
polyethylene glycol. . . . Nothing in the Chien long term drug delivery
device corresponds to the claimed hydrophilic component,” which “is
defined as an additional component that is added to the hydrophilic carrier
and active agent which may aid in the release of the active agent from the
external phase.” (Id.) Appellants argue that neither Pfister nor Powell
remedies this deficiency (id.).
We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed above, claim 1
encompasses a hydrophilic component that serves as a solvent and does not
require that the hydrophilic component “aid in the release of the active agent
from the external phase.” Thus, Chien’s hydrophilic solvent system
comprises a hydrophilic component (e.g., polyethylene glycol; Spec. 9:2-6)
and a hydrophilic carrier (water).
In addition, Appellants argue that the “Examiner failed to carry her
evidentiary burden of providing motivation or suggestion to combine the
reference teachings” (Br. 13 (emphasis omitted)). In particular, Appellants
argue that unlike Powell, which “teaches or suggests a topical preparation
that includes a protein or enzyme . . . , Chien does not teach or suggest a
topical preparation” and that therefore “one skilled in the art would not
modify Chien to provide an implantable long term delivery device that
contained enzymes” (id.).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Chien describes using its
device “on the skin” (Chien, col. 1, ll. 30-34), and describes administering a
“wide variety of pharmaceuticals” using its device (id. at col. 4, ll. 62-63).
Powell identifies enzymes as a dermatological or cosmetic active agent, and
describes topically applying not only several of the compounds described in
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013