Appeal 2007-0860
Application 10/148,535
we considered the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17 (1996); (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present.
Appellants argue that Harris discloses nothing about the use of l-
threo-methylphenidate, and even with respect to the d-threo isomer, they
only teach treating ADHD and narcolepsy (Br.2 3). Gross-Tsur, Appellants
assert, does not remedy the deficiencies of Harris, as Gross-Tsur is drawn to
the use of a racemic mixture of methylphenidate in treating children having
ADHD (id. at 5).
Gross-Tsur is drawn to the study of “the safety and efficacy of
methylphenidate in children with the dual diagnosis of epilepsy and attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).” (Abstract). The study consisted of
30 children with the dual diagnosis and lasted for eight weeks (Id at 671). In
the initial eight weeks, the children received only an antiepileptic drug, and
in the last eight weeks, both the antiepileptic drug and the methylphenidate
(id.). During the first eight weeks, 25 children were seizure free and 5 had a
maximum of two seizures a week (id. at 672). After the addition of
methylphenidate, the seizure free children remained seizure free, whereas of
the 5 children with active seizures, three had an increase in seizures, one had
no change in seizures, and one was seizure free (id.). Gross-Tsur states that
“changes in seizure frequency were noted when methylphenidate was given
to the five children who were still having seizures. This observation may
simply reflect a normal variation in seizure frequency, but is does raise
2 All references to the Brief (Br.) are to the Substitute Appeal Brief dated
March 28, 2006.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013