Appeal No. 2005-0902 Page 6
Application No. 09/529,053
Thus, we construe claim 16 to be directed to a method comprising contacting
cells susceptible to viral infection with, e.g., leflunomide or its active metabolite in an
amount effective to inhibit virion assembly, either in vitro or in vivo. We construe claim
22 to be directed to the same method, where the cells are also contacted with another
antiviral agent in addition to the leflunomide product.
2. Coghlan and McChesney
The examiner rejected claims 16-21, 24, and 25 as obvious in view of Coghlan
and McChesney. We conclude that McChesney anticipates claim 16, as we interpret it,
so we need not address Coghlan.
McChesney describes an experiment in which dogs weighing 10-30 kg were
administered either leflunomide or its active metabolite (A77-1726). See the paragraph
bridging pages 1717 and 1718, and the first paragraph on page 1718. The dogs treated
with leflunomide received 2, 4, 8, or 16 mg/kg/day; the dogs treated with A77-1726
received 2, 4, 6, or 8 mg/kg/day. See the second full paragraph on page 1718. The
dosages described by McChesney therefore correspond to between 20 and 480 mg/day
of leflunomide and 20-240 mg/day of A77-1726.1
Thus, McChesney describes in vivo administration of leflunomide and its active
metabolite at dosages within the range taught in the instant specification to be effective
for inhibiting virion assembly. McChesney therefore anticipates claim 16. Anticipation
is the epitome of obviousness. See Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542,
1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
1 The calculated dosages correspond to the lightest dog at the lowest dose and the heaviest dog at the
highest dose for each drug.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007