Interference 102,760
need of such treatment” (SRR, WIA, RI 2, p. 258; emphasis
added), in support
of his position.
While this evidence indicates that neither Rosekind nor
Schwimmer contributed to Dement’s conception of a method for
treatment of sleep apnea comprising administration of a
therapeutically effective amount of buspirone to a patient in
need of such treatment, Rapoport has not thereby shown that
(1) Schwimmer did not contribute to the concept of a method
for treating sleep apnea comprising administration of
therapeutically effective amounts of azapirones other than
buspirone to a patient in need of such treatment and did not
otherwise contribute to a patentable invention of Claims 1-13
of Application 07/695,325, or (2) Rosekind did not contribute
to a patentable invention of Claims 1-13 of Application
07/695,325. Rapoport has not established that Dement’s5
conception of a method for treatment
of sleep apnea comprising administration of a therapeutically
effective amount of buspirone to a patient in need of such
treatment itself constitutes a patentable invention, i.e. an
5 In other words, Rapoport has not shown that Claims 1-13
of Application 07/695,325 would be patentable to Dement without
the contributions of Schwimmer and Rosekind.
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007