Appeal 2007-1821
Application 11/040,964
Claims 75-114 are pending (Br. 2). Claims 81 and 87-114 are
withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to an unelected invention (Br.
2). Claims 75-80 and 82-86 stand finally rejected over prior art (Br. 2). The
Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability:
Herr ‘863 US 2,806,863 Sep. 17, 1957
Herr ‘517 US 2,837,517 Jun. 3, 1958
Lasdon GB App. 957,953 May 13, 1964
Herr ‘644 US 3,160,644 Dec. 8, 1964
Machlin US 3,438,783 Apr. 15, 1969
Cook US 5,952,319 Sep. 14, 1999
Claims 75-80 and 82-86 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Cook (Answer 3). Appellants argue claims 75-80, 85, and 86
separately from claims 82-84 (Br. 3). Within each grouping, Appellants do
not provide separate reasons for the patentability of any individual claim.
Consequently, the claims in each grouping stand or fall together. We select
claims 75 and 82 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claims 75
and 82 read as follows:
75. An oral dosage formulation comprising 7α,11β-dimethyl-
17β-hydroxyestr-4-en-3-one 17-undecanoate and a
pharmaceutically-acceptable carrier.
82. 7α,11β-dimethyl-17β-hydroxyestr-4-en-3-one 17-
undecanoate (Compound II) in crystalline form.
THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner summarizes Cook as follows:
Cook teaches a generic group of androgenic steroids having
enhanced activity relative to testosterone (see the entire
disclosure, especially formula (I), col. 2, line 66 - col. 4, line 4;
col. 9, line 65 - col. 10, line 40; col. 17, Example 3; col. 19, line
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013