Appeal No. 1997-1842
Application 08/068,878
Accordingly, we hold that the daily administration of terazosin, such as
HYTRIN®, to patients with symptomatic BPH, in amounts of 5 to 10 mg, which are
within the scope of claims 1-6, for as long as the symptoms persist, would have been
obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art. As discussed above, without the
surgical removal of the prostate adenoma, it is reasonable to expect that the urinary
symptoms of BPH will persist for at least three years. Thus, the prior art suggests the
claimed treatment for a period of at least two and one-half years.
II. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness,
we rely on Lepor et al. 1988, Lepor et al. 1989, Lepor 1992, Fabricius, Dunzendorfer
and HYTRIN®, as applied to claim 1 above, and additionally on Roteman and Kyncl.
We have held above that the disclosures of Lepor et al. 1988, Lepor et al. 1989,
Lepor 1992, Fabricius, Dunzendorfer and HYTRIN® would have rendered obvious the
chronic treatment of urinary symptoms associated with BPH by daily administering
terazosin as required by claims 1-6 on appeal. However, none of the references
describe terazosin in the form of a soft elastic gelatin capsule formulation as required in
claim 7. In this regard we point out the product sold under the trademark HYTRIN® is
in the form of a tablet.
Roteman discloses that terazosin hydrochloride dihydrate, which is the active
agent in the composition sold under the trademark HYTRIN®, can be administered in
the form of tablets or capsules. Roteman, col. 5, line 31.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007