Appeal 2007-1082
Application 10/327,383
1 have no trouble declining to credit appellants’ “showing” of non-
2 obviousness.
3
4 Examiner’s § 103 rejection based on Singer and Curatolo
5 The Examiner found that a person having ordinary skill in the art
6 seeking to make the tablets of Singer would have found it obvious to use the
7 process of Curatolo to do so.
8 The evidence supports the Examiner’s finding.
9 As the Examiner noted, Singer describes tablets made from
10 azithromycin ethanolate.
11 To be sure, Singer does not describe precisely how one would go
12 about making a tablet from its azithromycin—nor need Singer do so given
13 that the prior art already describes how a tablet is to be made. Cf. Webster
14 Loom Co. v. Higgins, 15 Otto (105 U.S.) 580 (1881) ((1) "The loom itself
15 was old. Every part of it was familiar to every loom manufacturer and to
16 every weaver."; (2) an inventor may begin a description of an invention at
17 the point where his invention begins, and describe what he has made that is
18 new, and what it replaces of the old and that which is common and known is
19 as if it were written out in the patent and delineated in the drawings).
20 Curatolo is a primer on what one skilled in the art knows about
21 making tablets.
22 Curatolo tells us that one skilled in the art seeking to make a tablet
23 containing azithromycin first granualates using preferably a wet-granulating
24 method and that depending on the precise properties sought knows how to
25 make processing choices.
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013