Appeal No. 97-1999
Application 07/390,745
therapeutic potency.
Thus, we agree with appellants’ view that persons having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led by Nadler’s
disclosure to believe that Nadler himself doubted the
therapeutic efficacy of ACC and looked to design new
derivatives of greater therapeutic potency.
Marvizon’s recognition that ACPC, the compound Nadler
labels ACC, “exhibits the characteristics of a potent and
selective partial agonist at these glycine modulatory sites”
(Marvizon,
p. 992, col. 2) does not remedy or supplant the deficiencies
of Nadler. While Marvizon’s findings, like those of Nadler,
strongly suggest that ACPC and glycine “act at a common site
on the NMDA receptor complex” (Marvizon, p. 994, col. 1) and
that “ACPC is a potent and selective ligand of the glycine
modulatory site coupled to NMDA receptors” (Marvizon, p. 994,
final para.), and Marvizon further indicates that “ACPC . . .
seems to behave as a partial agonist at these sites”
(Marvizon, p. 994, final para.), Marvizon, based on no more
evidence than this, merely states that “ACPC may prove useful
in neurochemical, pharmacological, and electrophysiological
studies of the NMDA receptor complex” (Marvizon, p. 994, final
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007