Appeal No. 1999-1703
Application No. 08/313,194
such treatment which comprises administering to said animal a neuronal conduction
velocity enhancing effective amount of an angiotensin II antagonist, or a pharmaceutically
acceptable salt thereof.
We find with respect to claims 1-5, that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. In particular, although the examiner would suggest that Bagley
teaches compounds such as angiotensin II antagonists have central nervous system
activity, the examiner has failed to provide evidence that that activity is an enhanced
neuronal conduction velocity, as claimed. Moreover, although Bagley would support that
A-II antagonists are also useful for the treatment of renal disorders in diabetics, the
examiner has not presented evidence, and we do not find support in Bagley that in the
treatment of such renal disorders the compounds result in enhanced neuronal conduction
velocity.
To punctuate this point, Appellants argue that (Brief, page 9)
The Examiner has not established any relevant association between
the cognitive disorders noted in Bagley with impairment of neuronal
conduction velocity, or between diabetic nephropathy or retinopathy
associated with Bagley, with the disease conditions associated with
impaired neuronal conduction velocity, such as diabetic neuropathy. Any
such associated would be refuted, e.g. by Cecil, et al., Textbook of
th
Medicine, 19 ed., (1992), 1307-09, 2037-2038; The Oxford Textbook of
rd
Medicine, 3 ed., page 3972); Bartus et al., Science 1982, Vol. 217 408-
th
417; and Gray's Anatomy, 38 ed. (1995) at 1823, ...
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007