Appeal No. 1996-0729
Application No. 07/859,572
IV. Rejection of method claims 1 and 12 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mitsuya, Ahluwalia, Herdewijn, Van Aerschot, Harmenberg and applicants’
admission in view of Legrand II.
Mitsuya, Ahluwalia, Herdewijn, Van Aerschot and Harmenberg all disclose 2', 3' -
dideoxynucleosides, e.g., 2', 3' - dideoxyadenosine and/or 2', 3' - dideoxyinosine, as antiviral agents
which inhibit HIV infection. Legrand II has been discussed supra.
According to the examiner, these 2', 3' - dideoxynucleosides are positional isomers of
2', 5' - dideoxyadenosine and their known antiviral activity would have suggested that 2', 5' -
dideoxyadenosine also possessed antiviral (i.e., anti-HIV) activity, thereby rendering the claimed
methods obvious (answer, pages 5-6). However, the examiner has not rebutted appellants’ arguments
that these structural relationships are not sufficiently close in the context of deoxynucleosides to suggest
a common activity (brief, pages 9-10). There is no evidence of record that 2', 3' - dideoxynucleosides
inhibit adenylate cyclase and the specification explicitly states that “[i]n contrast to 2', 3' -adenosine
analogs, ddAdo [i.e., 2', 5' -dideoxyadenosine] has no antiviral effect” (page 24, lines 31-32).
According to the examiner, the claims simply read on inhibiting the PKA/cAMP pathway and
since “cited prior art,” presumably Legrand II, teaches inhibiting this pathway by administering 2', 5' -
dideoxyadenosine, claims to such as a use are obvious (answer, page 14).
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007