Appeal No. 95-3117
Application 08/096,207
appellants’ showings that the potency of each of the presently
claimed compounds is at least superior to (-)-physostigmine
are unexpected and strongly support patentability over the
combined prior art teachings.
Appellants’ citation of Atack should have erased any
difficulty persons having ordinary skill in the art might have
had in comparing appellants’ showing of potencies toward human
erythrocyte AChE and human plasma BChE to the comparative
potencies Yu I tabulates for electric eel AChE and human
plasma BChE (Yu I, p. 128, Table 1). Note the final comments
of Yu I (Yu I, p. 130, col. 2):
. . . whether the differences in potencies toward AChE
and BChE observed in the present report are due to the
compounds themselves or are merely a consequence of
interspecies variability (i.e., is this same pattern of
inhibitory properties seen in AChE and BChE derived from
the same species?)
While Atack shows that Yu’s suspicions with regard to
interspecies potency variabilities were correct and that
N-phenylcarbamoyl eseroline is more potent against human
erythrocyte AChE than (-)-physostigmine and less potent
against electric eel AChE than (-)-physostigmine, we find that
appellants’ results are no less significant and unexpected
(Atack, p. 198, Table 1). In either case, Atack shows that
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007