Appeal No. 94-2477
Application 07/893,554
Claims 1 and 4 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and read as
follows:
1. A method of treating a patient with symptomatic HIV infection to stimulate
appetite of said patient which comprises administering to said patient a 2.5 mg dose of
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol twice daily.
4. Method according to claim 1 wherein said delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is
administered in the form of capsules containing said delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in
sesame oil.
Pending Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. It is unclear from our review of the record precisely what documents the
examiner is relying upon as evidence of obviousness. In rejecting the claims in the first
Office Action in the parent application (Paper No. 2, mailed June 3, 1991), the examiner
cited two articles from technical journals on the PTO-892, identifying these articles as
Vaupel et al.2 and Noyes et al.3 However, the record at the time of our initial review did
not contain a copy of either article. Rather, apparently the examiner relied upon and
supplied to appellant a printout obtained from a computer database containing a copy
of the abstract of Vaupel which appeared in Chemical Abstracts and a copy of the
abstract of Noyes which appeared on the Biosis database.
2 Vaupel, D.B., et al, Pharmacol Biochem Behav 17(3):539-545 (1982).
3 Noyes et al, Comp Psychiatry 17(5):641-646 (1976).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007