Appeal No. 95-3746
Application 08/063,431
selectively block the uptake of serotonin (5-HT) (claims 1-8
and 12-16) or dopamine (claims 9-11). The examiner’s
interpretation (answer, page 4) of the claims as being methods
for treating the diseases disclosed in appellants’
specification, such as Parkinson’s disease, clearly is
incorrect.
Appellants provide in vitro data in their specification
(Table 1, page 22) which show that the claimed methods are
useful for selectively blocking the uptake of serotonin and
dopamine. The examiner argues that such methods are devoid of
utility absent a showing that they are inexorably linked to
the treatment of a particular disease (answer, pages 7-8).
This argument is not well taken because the selective blocking
of the uptake of serotonin and dopamine are pharmacological
activities, and in the pharmaceutical arts, “practical utility
may be shown by adequate evidence of any pharmacological
activity.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1564, 39
USPQ2d 1895, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The examiner argues that appellants have not shown that
their in vitro tests indicate in vivo activity (answer, page
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007