Appeal No. 2006-0760
Application No. 10/312,417
in claim 20 excludes the presence of CMO (Br. 8-9). “Given that CMO is a
critical element of Levin's invention, there is no motivation or suggestion to
remove this critical element from Levin's composition nor is there any
reasonable expectation of success that Levin’s invention would be
practicable without the presence of CMO.” (Id. at 9.)
Appellant also argues that Example 3 of Levin is a “teaching away”
from using a Cox-2 inhibitor in the absence of CMO. He asserts that,
without CMO, it was necessary to increase the doses “to two to three times
the initial dose in order to maintain adequate symptomatic relief.” (Br. 10.)
At these dosages, side effects, including “dizziness, nausea and abdominal
pain” were observed. (Id.) The addition of CMO permitted the doses to be
decreased to their initial levels. (Id.)
Finally, Appellant asserts that Lee does not teach or suggest the use of
Cox-2 inhibitors alone for transdermal administration. Br. 10. “Lee offers
no additional insight into Levin’s problems with the use of COX-2 inhibitors
alone and are directed toward transdermal delivery of nicotine and
melatonin, two drugs which differ greatly both structurally and functionally
from the compounds used by Levin.” (Br. 10-11.)
After considering the record before, it is our opinion that there is
sufficient evidence to establish that the subject matter recited in claim 20 is
obvious. As indicated by the Examiner, Lee generally teaches that any
NSAID can be administered transdermally (Answer 5). Lee at col. 8, ll. 3.
Because celecoxib and rofecoxib are known NSAIDS, their administration
via a transdermal delivery device is merely following Lee’s suggestion.
While Lee does not explicitly disclose celecoxib and rofecoxib, a reference
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013