Appeal No. 2007-0091
Application No. 09/765,491
We affirm the rejection of claim 10 as obvious in view of Arbiser, Thaloor,
and Aggarwal. Claims 11, 12, and 19 fall with claim 10.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following
new grounds of rejection:
• Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Andrulis; and
• Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite.
1. ANTICIPATION
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Andrulis. Claim 4 is reproduced above. Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and
requires the angiogenesis inhibitor to be applied topically.
Andrulis teaches a method of treating “inflammatory and autoimmune
dermatoses which comprises topical and/or systemic administration of. . .
thalidomide.” Abstract. Thalidomide is one of the angiogenesis inhibitors
listed in claim 4. Among other conditions, Andrulis discloses treating
“molluscum contagiosum.” Col. 7, ll. 3-4. This condition reasonably
appears to be the same as the “molluscum contagious” recited in claim 4.
Andrulis teaches a method of treating molluscum contagiosum by topical
administration of thalidomide, and therefore anticipates claims 4 and 5.
2. INDEFINITENESS
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite. Claim 4, and therefore also claims 5 and 6, are directed to a
“method for inhibiting symptoms associated with angiogenesis in the
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013