Appeal No. 2001-1043 Page 3
Application No. 08/734,738
DISCUSSION
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Thor, Mayer and the admission in the specification, particularly at page 1. The
pertinent part of the rejection is reproduced below.
Thor teaches that NMDA antagonists broadly, possess
activity which may be useful in the treatment of disorders of urinary
incontinence. See particularly column 2, lines 42-58 therein. The
claims differ in that they are drawn to compositions containing
particular NMDA antagonizing compounds in combination with at
least one more pharmacologically active agent which compositions
may be in a sustained release dosage form.
One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to employ
dextromethorphan or dextrophan in a composition for the treatment
of urinary incontinence since these compounds were known to
have NMDA antagonizing activity. See Meyer et al. particularly the
abstract. Any NMDA antagonizing compound would be reasonably
expected to be similarly useful in the treatment of urinary disorders
herein.
Answer, pages 3-4.
Appellant argues that Thor is drawn to the use of competitive NMDA
receptor antagonists, and that the one example of a non-competitive receptor
antagonist disclosed in the Thor patent, MK-801, was discussed as increasing
the frequency of micturition (urination). Thus, appellant argues that the
disclosure of Thor in fact teaches away from the claimed compositions. In
response, the examiner asserts that “the overwhelming weight of the evidence in
Thor would teach towards the employment of a compound which blocks an
NMDA receptor by any means in the treatment of urinary incontinence,” and that
“[t]he criticality of the particular mechanism of NMDA receptor antagonism or
blockade to the treatment of urinary incontinence is not seen.” Answer, pages
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007