Ex Parte Khanolkar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201310840143 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte JAYANT EKANTH KHANOLKAR and SHANE MICHAEL DE LA HARPE __________ Appeal 2012-003429 Application 10/840,143 Technology Center 1600 __________ Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-17. The Examiner entered rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Proctor & Gamble Company (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2012-003429 Application 10/840,143 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants do not separately argue the claims. Therefore, the claims stand or fall together. Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A pharmaceutical composition comprising: (a) from about 55% to about 90% by weight of the composition of a suspended pharmaceutical active: (b) from about 0.001%, to about 1.00% by weight of a suspended stabilizing agent selected from the group consisting of phytic acid, disodium salts of ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid, calcium salts of ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid, tetrasodium ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid, sodium hexametaphosphate, di(hydroxyethyl)glycine, 8- hydroxyquinoline, and mixtures thereof: and (c) from about 9% to about 39% by weight of a solvent; wherein the composition is encapsulated within a soft gelatin capsule. The sole rejection before us for review is the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Dobrozsi,2 White,3 and Kennedy.4 OPINION Issue Does the evidence of record support the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness? 2 Dobrozsi et al., 2003/0113377 A1, published Jun. 19, 2003. 3 White, WO 94/25008, published Nov. 10, 1994. 4 Kennedy, The Thinking Person's Guide to Perfect Health: Chelation, 1996. Appeal 2012-003429 Application 10/840,143 3 Analysis Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants’ contentions, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 is prima facie obvious over the combination of Dobrozsi, White, and Kennedy. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein by reference. Conclusion of Law The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Because they are not separately argued claims 2-4, 6-12 and 14-17 fall together with claim 1. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation