Appeal No. 1999-1703
Application No. 08/313,194
to treat diabetic neuropathy”. Answer, page 3. The examiner further finds that “[t]he
velocity of [sic, that] such action takes places would be inherent in the use thereof.” Id.
In their Brief (page 5), appellants acknowledge that A-II antagonists were known in
the art, however, they argue that the prior art does not directly teach or suggest that A-II
antagonists would be effective in the treatment of conditions associated with impaired
neuronal function. The appellants argue that the examiner “appeared to be confusing
<diabetic nephropathy,' a renal or kidney disease mentioned in Bagley, with <diabetic
neuropathy,' a disorder of the nervous system...” Id., Note 1 [emphasis original].
In the final rejection, the examiner indicates that Bagley et al. teach at column 1, line
48 to column 2, line 68 that the use of indoles and tetrazoles which are angiotensin II
antagonists are useful in the treatment of cognitive dysfunctions including Alzheimer's
disease, amnesia and senile dementia. Paper No. 14, page 2. The examiner finds that
in view of the teaching of Bagley et al. at column 57, lines 30-35 that the agents set forth
therein would treat diabetes would motivate the skilled artisan to treat or prevent diabetic
neuropathy since it teaches the treatment of a form of diabetes. According to the
examiner, the activity therein would inherently enhance neuronal conduction velocity.
In the present case, the claims are specifically directed to a method of treatment of
a specific disorder, treating or preventing the development of disease conditions
associated with impaired neuronal conduction velocity in a warm-blooded animal requiring
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007