Appeal No. 1997-0100
Application 08/167,051
hydroxyproline ether or thio ether derivative” because “replacement of one heterocyclic
compound with another would expectedly result in a peptide having a similar Bk antagonist
activity;” and “said heterocyclic compounds are known to be functionally equivalent or
would have a greater potency in vitro.” Examiner’s Answer, pages 5 and 6. In our
judgment, the examiner’s reasons for combining these references will not withstand
scrutiny.
Patchett discloses a generic structural formula for peptide inhibitors of angiotensin
converting enzyme (ACE). There are 26 alternatives suggested for the “heterocyclic
elements” of the inhibitors (among them hydroxyproline derivatives and Tic). The examiner
has not explained how interchangeability of these substituents in ACE inhibitors is at all
relevant to the modification of bradykinin antagonists. There is no evidence of record that
bradykinin and ACE (or their inhibitors/antagonists) are similar in structure or function;
indeed, appellants maintain that ACE inhibitors and bradykinin antagonists have
“diametric effects and functions,” at least with respect to modulating blood pressure (Brief,
pages 20 and 21). Nor do we see anything in Patchett to indicate that the substituents
listed are recognized as universal functional equivalents. Thus, we agree with appellants
that “even if the heterocyclic compounds are functionally equivalent in ACE inhibitors, they
are not necessarily functionally equivalent in bradykinin antagonists” (Brief, page 20).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007