Appeal No. 1999-1703
Application No. 08/313,194
With respect to claim 13, the examiner has not provided any reasoned analysis why
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the claimed
angiotensin II antagonists with one or more pharmaceutical agents selected from aldose
reductase inhibitors and hypoglycaemic agents. In the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
the examiner has failed to even address composition claim 13 separate from the method
claims.
After evidence or arguments are submitted by the appellants in response to
rejection based on obviousness, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by
a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of the argument.
On balance, we believe that the totality of the evidence presented by the examiner and
appellants weighs in favor of finding the claimed invention to be non-obvious in view of the
cited references. We find the examiner has not established on the record before us that
the cited references both suggest the claimed subject matter and reveal a reasonable
expectation of success to one reasonably skilled in the art. The rejection of claims 1-5 and
13 for obviousness of the claimed invention is reversed.
35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as containing
subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007