Appeal No. 2001-1030 Page 2
Application No. 09/159,334
The examiner relies upon the following reference:
Backström et al. (Backström) 5,292,771 Mar. 8, 1994
Martenson, Jr., et al. (Martenson), “Olsalazine is contraindicated during pelvic
radiation therapy: Results of a double-blind, randomized clinical trial,” Int. J.
Radiation Onocology Biol. Phys., Vol. 35, No.2, pp. 299-303 (1996)
Resbeut et al. (Resbeut), ”A randomized double blind placebo controlled
multicenter study of mesalazine for the prevention of acute radiation enteritis,”
Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 44, pp. 59-63 (1997)
In addition, appellants rely on the following references:
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Backström. After careful review of the record and consideration of the issues
before us, we reverse.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Backström. According to the rejection, Backström teaches the synthesis of
Orazipone and that it may be used in the treatment of inflammatory bowel
disease. See Examiner’s Answer, page 3. The term Inflammatory Bowel
Diseases as used by Backström includes chronic inflammatory conditions of the
of the gastrointestinal tract such as Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. See
Backström, col. 1, lines 21-23. The rejection concludes:
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to follow the suggestions
of Backstrom et al and generate a method of treating radiation
enteropathy by administering a therapeutic amount of Orazipone
because while Backstrom et al does not specifically state that their
diketones are useful for in a method treating radiation enteropathy,
a skilled practitioner in the art would have been motivated to utilize
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007