Appeal No. 1997-1842
Application 08/068,878
Claim 2 and claims which depend from claim 2 are directed to the method
recited in claim 1, but 1-(4-amino-6,7-dimethoxy-2-quinazolinyl)-4-[(tetrahydro-2-
furanyl)carbonyl]piperazine monohydrochloride dihydrate is administered as the active
ingredient.
According to the present specification, the compound recited in claim 1,
1-(4-amino-6,7-dimethoxy-2-quinazolinyl)-4-[(tetrahydro-2-furanyl)carbonyl]piperazine is
also known as “terazosin.” Specification, page 1, lines 6-7.
The examiner states that claims 1 through 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Lepor et al. 1988, Lepor et al. 1989 and Lepor 1992, Lepor
1989, Dunzendorfer or Fabricius. See the Answer, pages 2 and 3. The examiner
“describes” each reference in a single brief sentence followed by three additional short
quotes from Lepor 1989. The examiner concludes, “[i]n view of this, one skilled in the
art would be motivated to treat symptomatic BPH with terazosin indefinitely at 10 mg
per dose.” In reviewing the examiner’s position, we are unable to discern precisely to
what “this” refers, e.g., Lepor 1989, or one of the other five references.
The examiner’s rejection is difficult to review since it is not clear whether the
examiner relies on the combination of all six references, on each of the six references
individually, or on some other combination thereof, such as those proposed by
appellants. See the Brief, pages 2 and 3.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007