Appeal 2007-2524
Application 10/194,834
As noted above, claim 1 is not the only broad disclosure of a
composition comprising ciprofloxacin. Cagle discusses prior art (Cagle at
col. 1, ll. 48-53; FF 15) and its own compositions that comprise
ciprofloxacin without preservatives (FF 6), including a specific example of
ciprofloxacin composition which lacks a preservative (Cagle at col. 8, l. 18;
FF 9-10). Appellants have not provided any evidence that would contravene
Cagle’s explicit disclosure – including claim 1 and Example 2 – of
ciprofloxacin compositions which lack preservative.
Appellants also contend that Cagle’s specification does not support
the “negative limitation . . . ‘free of any other component effective as a
preservative’ [because it] requires basis in the specification, and a failure of
the specification to contain such basis constitutes a violation of the written
description requirement for any claim containing a negative limitation” (
Reply Br. 5). We do not see the relevance of this argument. Cagle’s claim
does not recite a negative limitation. The Examiner’s position, which we
find no error with, is that Cagle’s claim 1, in reciting a composition
“comprising” ciprofloxacin, covers compositions both with and without
BAC.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Examiner did not err
in rejecting claims 36 as anticipated by Cagle. Claims 37-43 falls with claim
36 because they were not separately argued.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013