Appeal No. 1996-2431
Application 08/008,186
II. Claims 5 through 7, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Channabasavaiah, Bajusz, Rivier, Sela and Varga.
III. Claims 8 through 10, 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Channabasavaiah, Bajusz, Rivier and Stevens.
IV. Claims 16 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Channabasavaiah, Bajusz, Rivier, Sela, Varga and Stevens.
Claims 11, 13, 14 and 19 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Channabasavaiah, Bajusz, Rivier, Stevens, Lin and Anderson.
DISCUSSION
The present invention is directed to cytotoxic agonists and antagonists of luteinizing
hormone releasing hormone (LHRH). In each of the claimed LHRH decapeptide analogs,
a cytotoxic agent is conjugated directly or indirectly to the amino acid residue at position
six, and the amino acid at position six is always D-Lys or D-Orn. We note that both the
examiner and appellants have focused throughout the prosecution on those LHRH
agonists and antagonists wherein the cytotoxic moiety is D-melphalan (D-Mel),
anthraquinoyl or methotrexoyl. As this board functions as a board of review, not a de novo
examination tribunal, we shall do likewise. 2
235 U.S.C. § 7(b): “The [board] shall . . . review adverse decisions of examiners
upon applications for patents . . . “
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007