Appeal No. 94-2113
Application 07/801,207
designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection under
37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b).
Applicants do not address the separate patentability of any
particular claim (Appeal Brief, page 2). Hence, the claims stand
or fall together with independent process claim 1.
Independent process claim 1 reads:
A method for stabilizing or causing
regression of atherosclerosis in a mammalian
specie (sic--species), which comprises
administering to a mammalian specie (sic--
species) in need of such treatment an
effective amount of a combination of a
cholesterol lowering drug and an angiotensin
converting enzyme inhibitor.
All other claims depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
An example of a cholesterol lowering drug is said to be
pravastatin (specification, page 1, line 17). An example of an
angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor is said to be
captopril (specification, page 1, line 19).
The examiner has rejected claims 1 to 4, 11 to 16 and 19
to 28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior
art, in particular the combination of Cecil, Costa et al.,
Weinstein et al., Someya et al. and Hoffman et al. The examiner
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007