Appeal No. 96-3861
Application 08/114,251
In rejecting the appealed claims on non-prior art grounds, the examiner relies on the
following references:
M. Clozel, et al., "Pathophysiological role of endothelin revealed by the first orally
active endothelin receptor antagonist", Nature, Vol. 365, October 21, 1993, pgs.
759-61. (Clozel)
S. Mihara, et al., "The endothelin ET receptor-speciific effect of 50-235, a
A
nonpeptide endothelin antagonist", European Journal of Pharmacology-Molecular
Pharmacology Section, Vol. 246, 1993, pgs. 33-38. (Mihara)
A. Doherty, "Endothelin:A New Challange", Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, Vol. 35,
No. 9, May 1, 1992, pgs. 1493-1508. (Doherty)
P. D. Stein, et al., "The Discovery of Sulfonamide Endothelin Antagonists and the
Development of the Orally Active ET Antagonist 5-(Dimethylamino)-N-(3,4-
A
dimethyl-5-isoxazolyl)-1-Naphthalensulfonamide, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry,
Vol. 37, No. 3, February 4, 1994, pgs. 329-331. (Stein)
The issue presented for review is whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 2
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a non-enabling disclosure.
On consideration of the record, including the appeal brief (paper no. 13) and the
Examiner's Answer (paper no. 14), we shall reverse this rejection.
DISCUSSION
The examiner's rejection is couched in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The real issue, however, is whether all of the claimed compounds are useful for treating
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007