Appeal No. 2000-0591
Application No. 08/311,291
enzymes, but rather on structural features . . . [f]or Herpes, it is virion structure.”
Answer, pages 5 and 6. Thus, “there is no particular reason that a compound which
was effective against one member of [the Herpes] family . . . would be expected to be
effective generally.” Id., page 5.
The examiner also argues that “there is [no] drug which is effective generally
against [any viral] family,” defining “effective” as “having actual value in treating the
virus infection” (Answer, page 6), i.e. having a “therapeutic benefit,” or affording a
“significant reduction in e.g. severity or duration” (Id., page 8). In illustrating his point,
the examiner concedes that acyclovir, an acyclic nucleoside structurally similar to PCV,
“will somewhat weakly suppress EBV4 replication,” and also that “there is some in vitro
effectiveness of [acyclovir and gancyclovir] against EBV,” but argues that neither drug
provides a therapeutic or clinical benefit in diseases linked to EBV, including “infectious
mononucleosis (IM); nasopharygeal carcinoma; Burkitts Lymphoma (BL); Post-
transplantation lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) . . . ; and other T-cell lymphomas
including Benign Lymphocytosis and Purtillo syndrome; some thymomas; and hairy
leukoplakia.” Answer, pages 7 and 8. The examiner provides a similar illustration for
CMV,5 noting, for example, that “CMV retinitis, . . . probably the most widespread of all
CMV-associated disorders, simply does not respond to [a]cyclovir.” Answer, page 9.
If we can summarize the examiner’s principal concerns regarding the scope of
the claimed invention, they are (1) that the herpesviruses as a class are too dissimilar to
4 Epstein-Barr Virus, classified as a herpesvirus.
5 Cytomegalovirus, classified as a herpesvirus.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007