Ex Parte RIDIHALGH - Page 5


                Appeal No.  2001-1150                                                 Page 5                  
                Application No.  09/767,764                                                                   

                      different dosage regimens.  See 21 C.F.R. § 312.21(b).  FDA                             
                      approval, however, is not a prerequisite for finding a compound                         
                      useful within the meaning of the patent laws.  . . . .  Usefulness in                   
                      patent law, and in particular the context of pharmaceutical                             
                      inventions, necessarily includes the expectation of further research                    
                      and development.  The stage at which an invention in this field                         
                      becomes useful is well before it is ready to be administered to                         
                      humans.  Were we to require Phase II testing in order to prove                          
                      utility, the associated costs would prevent many companies from                         
                      obtaining patent protection on promising new inventions, thereby                        
                      eliminating an incentive to pursue, through research and                                
                      development, potential cures in many crucial areas such as the                          
                      treatment of cancer.                                                                    
                In re Brana, 51 F.3d, 1560, 1568 34 USPQ2d 1436, 1442-43 (Fed. Cir. 1995)                     
                (citations omitted).                                                                          
                      In this case, the inventor has presented data from Phase I clinical studies             
                in humans.  See Klimas Declaration, Paper No. 5, ¶ 11.  Moreover, as noted by                 
                the examiner, most of the patients demonstrated some type of improvement                      
                upon receiving treatment.  See Examiner’s Answer, page 5 (“Upon treatment,                    
                patients reported little improvement (page 12, line 1), modest improvement (page              
                14, line 3), marked improvement after one week, but only 50% showed                           
                improvement overall (page 16, line 3; page 18, line 2; page 20, line 3; page 22,              
                line 3.”).  There is no need for the inventor to demonstrate that the treatment will          
                be efficacious in every patient exhibiting CFS, i.e., a “magic bullet” for the                
                treatment of CFS.  See, e.g. Brana, 51 F.3d at 1568, 34 USPQ2d at 1442 (“We                   
                hold as we do because it is our firm conviction that one who has taught the                   
                public that a compound exhibits some desirable pharmaceutical property in a                   
                standard experimental animal has made a significant and useful contribution to                
                the art, even though it may eventually appear that the compound is without value              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007