Ex Parte PLASSE - Page 2




              Appeal No. 94-2477                                                                                       
              Application 07/893,554                                                                                   



                     Claims 1 and 4 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and read as                       
              follows:                                                                                                 
                     1.  A method of treating a patient with symptomatic HIV infection to stimulate                    
              appetite of said patient which comprises administering to said patient a 2.5 mg dose of                  
              delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol twice daily.                                                                
                     4.  Method according to claim 1 wherein said delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is                      
              administered in the form of capsules containing said delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in                     
              sesame oil.                                                                                              

                                                  Pending Rejection                                                    
                     Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                     
               103.  It is unclear from our review of the record precisely what documents the                         
              examiner is relying upon as evidence of obviousness.  In rejecting the claims in the first               
              Office Action in the parent application (Paper No. 2, mailed June 3, 1991), the examiner                 
              cited two articles from technical journals on the PTO-892, identifying these articles as                 
              Vaupel et al.2 and Noyes et al.3  However, the record at the time of our initial review did              
              not contain a copy of either article.  Rather, apparently the examiner relied upon and                   
              supplied to appellant a printout obtained from a computer database containing a copy                     
              of the abstract of Vaupel which appeared in Chemical Abstracts and a copy of the                         
              abstract of Noyes which appeared on the Biosis database.                                                 

                     2   Vaupel, D.B., et al, Pharmacol Biochem Behav 17(3):539-545 (1982).                            
                     3   Noyes et al, Comp Psychiatry 17(5):641-646 (1976).                                            
                                                          2                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007