Appeal No. 1995-1990
Application 08/006,691
The applicant describes the invention at pages 1-3 of the specification, as being
directed to a method of modulating hyperkinetic movement disorders in mammals by
administering an opiate receptor antagonist to the mammal. Applicant states that the
administration of the opiate receptor antagonist can prevent or treat neuroleptic-mediated
tardive dyskinesia as well as hyperkinetic movement disorders associated with conditions
which are psychogenic, idiopathic, genetic, infectious or drug-induced.
Discussion
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on the underlying facts. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); Continental Can Co. USA, Inc.
v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1270, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Panduit
Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-97 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In considering the issues raised in this appeal we have carefully considered
the evidence and reasoning presented by the examiner in support of the rejections of the
appealed claims. However, on this record we are constrained to conclude that the
examiner has failed to provide those evidentiary facts which would reasonably support a
conclusion that the rejected claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 1, 4, and 5:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007