Appeal No. 94-2113
Application 07/801,207
and an ACE inhibitor to stabilize or cause regression of
atherosclerosis. The examiner's rejection is bottomed on the
general rule that it would have been prima facie obvious to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to use a mixture of two
prior art compounds for a particular purpose where each prior art
compound is known individually to be useful for that same
purpose. Applicable precedent supports the examiner's
application of the general rule. See, inter alia, (1) In re
Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)
(prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is
taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in
order to form a third composition which is also used for that
purpose), cited by the examiner (Examiner's Answer, page 5);
(2) In re Dial, 326 F.2d 430, 432, 140 USPQ 244, 245 (CCPA 1964)
(same); (3) In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 276, 126 USPQ 186, 188
(CCPA 1960) (same); and (4) In re Pinten, 459 F.2d 1053, 1055,
173 USPQ 801, 803 (CCPA 1972) (same).
Given that both cholesterol lowering drugs, such as
pravastatin, and ACE inhibitors, such as captopril, are
individually known to treat symptoms of atherosclerosis
(specification, pages 3-4 and 6), on this record it would have
been obvious, consistent with binding precedent and the general
rule set out above, for one having ordinary skill in the art to
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007