Appeal No. 1995-1990
Application 08/006,691
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are directed to a method of preventing neuroleptic induced
tardive dyskinesia in a subject comprising commencing the concurrent administration of an
opiate receptor antagonist and a neuroleptic, prior to appearance of symptoms of
hyperkinesia. The examiner acknowledges that Lindenmayer teaches the administration
of the opiate receptor antagonist after symptoms of hyperkinesia appear and at a time
after the initial administration of the neuroleptic but argues that the disclosure would have
made obvious the administration of the opiate receptor antagonist at any time after
neuroleptic treatment including before the time tardive dyskinesia is manifested. (Answer
of Sept. 1, 1992, page 4).
We note that the burden is on the examiner to provide a reason, based on the prior
art or knowledge generally available in the art, as to why it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins
& Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 297, n.24, 227 USPQ 657, 667, n.24 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
On this record, the examiner has provided no factual evidence which would reasonably
suggest modifying the disclosure of Lindenmayer in a manner to arrive at a method of
preventing neuroleptic induced tardive dyskinesia in a subject by concurrently commencing
administration of an opiate receptor antagonist and a neuroleptic prior to the appearance
of symptoms of hyperkinesia movement.
Claims 7, 16, 18:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007