Appeal No. 1997-1842
Application 08/068,878
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
We initially note that there is a need to resolve confusion concerning the scope
of claim 2 on appeal. The examiner stated on page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer that
claim 2 does not require that the treatment be for a period of at least two and one-half
years. We disagree.
The term “chronic treatment” recited in claims 2, 4 and 6 is defined in the
specification as “continuing, on-going treatment for the duration of urinary symptoms
associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia and means a period of treatment of at
least two and one-half years” (emphasis added). Specification, page 3, lines 26-29.
Thus, the chronic treatment required by claim 2 must be for a period of at least two and
one-half years.
I. Claims 1 through 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of
obviousness, we rely upon Lepor et al. 1988, Lepor et al. 1989, Lepor 1992, Fabricius,
Dunzendorfer and HYTRIN®.
The following findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record
as noted.
1. The administration of terazosin in the treatment of urinary symptoms
associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is well-known in the art, as shown
by Lepor et al. 1989, Lepor 1992, Dunzendorfer and Fabricius.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007