Ex parte GOODSHIP et al. - Page 3


                      Appeal No. 1997-2751                                                                                                                
                      Application No. 08/159,096                                                                                                          



                                                                     Discussion                                                                           
                               The pending claims are drawn to a method of treating fractures in                                                          
                      mammals by administering a methanebisphosphonic acid compound.  The                                                                 
                      examiner rejected all of the claims as obvious over Fitton, Gall,2 Kanis, and                                                       
                      Henricson.  According to the exa miner, Fitton discloses the use of                                                                 
                      bisphosphonate in “bone fracture medications” and Gall teaches use of                                                               
                      bisphosphonates when the process of bone formation and breakdown is                                                                 
                      disturbed.  The examiner cited Kanis and Henricson as showing “the breadth and                                                      
                      wealth of knowledge of diphosphonates in bone therapy.”  Examiner’s Answer,                                                         
                      page 3.  The examiner concluded that any differences between the prior art and                                                      
                      the claimed method amounted merely to optimizing parameters, and therefore                                                          
                      the cited prior art would have made the obvious the claimed method.                                                                 
                               Appellants argue that the references cited by the examiner do not support                                                  
                      a prima facie case of obviousness, for several reasons.  Appellants argue that                                                      
                      resorptive bone disorders (e.g., osteoporosis) are caused by a mechanism that is                                                    
                      completely different from bone fracture.  Appellants also argue that treatments for                                                 
                      the two types of disorders are also completely different, in that the systemic                                                      
                                                                                                                                                          
                      periodical.”).  Fortunately, Appellants in their Brief provided full citations to the references relied                             
                      on by the Examiner, allowing us to discern the basis for the rejection.                                                             
                      2 We note that the examiner relied on EP 252505 (Gall), which is in German, in her statement of                                     
                      the rejection but cited to a U.S. Patent when discussing what is disclosed by Gall.  We assume                                      
                      the U.S. Patent cited is 4,942,157 (Gall), which Appellants indicate in their Brief corresponds to                                  
                      EP 252505.  We also note that U.S. Patent 4,942,157 issued on July 17, 1990, making it prior art                                    
                      with respect to the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).  We are baffled by the examiner’s                                      
                      reliance on a reference in German when a corresponding English language reference was in the                                        
                      record.  It should be obvious that when two equivalent references are available, one in English                                     

                                                                            3                                                                             



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007