Appeal 2007-2834
Application 09/943,048
Because the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 and its
dependent claims 19-21 and 23.
Claim 10 essentially recites a method of treating inflammation in a
mammal by administering the composition of claim 18. We therefore also
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-13
and 24.
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 15 AND 22
Claims 15 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as obvious
over Hedden, Langhoff, and Shapiro in view of Burch, Drug Facts, and
Hendler (Answer 7-8).
We will reverse this rejection as well. Claims 15 and 22 depend from
claims 10 and 18, respectively. The compositions recited in claims 15 and
22 therefore contain the same ingredients recited in claims 10 and 18. As
discussed above, we do not agree with the Examiner that Hedden, Langhoff,
and Shapiro suggest a composition having the claimed ingredients. We do
not see, and the Examiner does not point to, any disclosures in Burch, Drug
Facts, or Hendler that remedy the shortcomings of the other references.
We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 22.
SUMMARY
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims
10-13, 18-21, 23, and 24 as obvious in view of Hedden, Langhoff, and
Shapiro. We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 15
and 22.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013