Appeal No. 2002-0253
Application No. 09/093,450
based on the teachings of Aggarwal, but we nevertheless point out that the use of
cyclosporin for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis was known in the art at the time the
appellants’ invention was made. See, the Ackerman patent. Thus, with respect to a
method of treating rheumatoid arthritis, the record indicates that those of ordinary skill
in the art would not have considered Aggarwal as describing a generic class of
compounds; rather, such persons would have had a specific preference for cyclosporin.
In re Petering, 301 F.2d at 681, 133 USPQ at 279.
As to claim 16, it differs from claim 15 only in that it comprises the use of an anti-
TNF" antibody as the antagonist. We find from a fair reading of the Aggarwal patent
that one skilled in the art would have reasonably read the TNF antagonists taught
therein for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis to include anti-TNF" antibodies. See,
e.g., the abstract, col. 4, lines 34-63; Example 1, cols. 8-9. Moreover, we point that the
prior art of record demonstrates that anti-TNF" antibodies were known to be useful for
the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis at the time the present invention was made. See,
Le, col. 37, line 45- col. 38, line 21. Thus, our finding that one skilled in the art would
have understood the teaching of the patent to include the treatment of rheumatoid
arthritis using an anti-TNF" antibody is consistent with the prior art of record.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, Rejection I is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007