Ex parte PERSHADSINGH et al. - Page 10




                   Appeal No. 95-0885                                                                                                                                  
                   Application 07/725,327                                                                                                                              


                             We do not find these reasons persuasive.  We find, for reasons already given, that the ordinary                                           
                   meaning of the term “hypertension” would include “essential hypertension.”  Moreover, Hindley                                                       
                   does not qualify his reference to “other diseases” as being limited to only those diseases associated                                               
                   with Type II diabetes or hyperglycemia.  In view of the definition of “hypertension” supra, we find                                                 
                   nothing in the context of Hindley’s disclosure which would have lead one skilled in the art to such                                                 
                   a limited interpretation.  Even assuming that one skilled in the art would have interpreted Hindley as                                              
                   being limited to hypertension associated with Type II diabetes or hypoglycemia, neither appellants                                                  
                   nor the declarants have presented any evidence which would lend support for such an interpretation.                                                 
                   Hindley specifically discloses that his compounds can be used to treat hypertension, cardiovascular                                                 
                   disease and certain eating disorders (col. 9, lines 55-60) and that  the “dosage regimens for the                                                   
                   treatment of hypertension, cardiovascular disease and eating disorders will generally be those                                                      
                   mentioned ... in relation to hyperglycemia” (col. 11, lines 6-9).  We conclude that Hindley would have                                              
                   reasonably  suggested  to  one  having  ordinary  skill  in  the  art  to  expect  that  the  disclosed                                             
                   thiazolidinedione derivatives would be useful to treat “essential hypertension.”  Obviousness does                                                  
                   not require absolute predictability, but only the reasonable expectation of success.  In re Clinton, 527                                            
                   F. 2d 1226, 1228, 188 USPQ 365, 367 (CCPA 1976); In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304, 190 USPQ                                                        
                   425, 428 (CCPA 1976); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976).                                                             
                             Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we conclude that the examiner has made out a prima                                                 
                   facie case of obviousness over Hindley as to claims 1-7 and 9-17 because it is reasonable over the                                                  
                   teachings of Hindley that one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success                                                 
                                                                                -10-                                                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007