Appeal No. 97-2833
Application 08/236,190
amount of cotinine which is in the bloodstream of persons who smoke cigarettes
moderately heavily would not have the pharmacologic effect of suppressing appetite,
preventing weight gain or inducing weight loss. Furthermore, we find in the applied
prior art no teaching that Benowitz’s amount of cotinine of 240 Fg/kg corresponds to a
total amount of nicotine metabollites within the range recited in appellant’s claims. In
addition, we do not find motivation from the applied prior art to administer, to a person
in need of appetite suppression or weight gain prevention or loss, a larger amount of
nicotine than that which would be ingested by smoking. We note that Hutchinson
discloses administration of nicotine metabolites to treat emotional states characterized
by anger, aggressivity, irritability, tensions, nervousness, fears and anxieties and to
improve task performance (col. 1, line 53 - col. 2, line 20), but does not disclose
administering the nicotine to patients in need of management of body weight changes.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has not carried her
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of appellant’s claimed
invention.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new ground of
rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007