Appeal 2007-0851
Application 10/385,213
Appellants argue that “Chien does not teach or suggest these
[compounds] as part of the water and hydrophilic solvent used as a carrier
for the pharmaceutical” (Br. 15). We agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that claim 22 would have been
obvious.
Chien states that the water miscible solvent “increase[s] the aqueous
solubility of [the] pharmaceutical” (Chien, col. 3, ll. 21-31). Chien does not
teach that the water miscible solvent is PVA or PVP, nor does the Examiner
cite any evidence that PVA or PVP would be expected to increase the
aqueous solubility of enzymes. There is also no evidence of record that
PVA or PVP was considered to be interchangeable with the glycols
described in Chien that would given a person of ordinary skill in the art
reason to have substituted one for the other. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). Therefore, we
agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately shown that it
would have been obvious to include PVA or PVP in the solvent system
described in Chien. We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 22 and of
claims 23 and 24, which depend from claim 22.
Claim 31 depends from claim 1 and requires that the topical
preparation contain a “topical dressing compris[ing] a patch.” The Examiner
relies on Webster’s Dictionary for teaching that the term “patch” is defined
as “a covering or dressing applied to protect a wound or sore” and therefore
“does not require any particular physical form, only that the composition
cover[s] a region of interest” (Answer 13). The Examiner argues that the
compositions of Chien and Powell “would cover whatever portion of the
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013