Appeal No. 2001-1044 Page 7
Application No. 08/881,216
invention include . . . nystatin [and] naftifine.” Column 12, lines 56-61. Thus,
Janoff suggests that both nystatin and the allylamine naftifine are appropriate for
encapsulation in liposomes.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to combine the terbinafine taught by Birnbaum with
the topical, liposome-encapsulated antifungal formulation taught by Lopez-
Berestein. Motivation to replace Lopez-Berestein’s nystatin with Birnbaum’s
terbinafine is provided by the following teachings:
(1) Both nystatin and terbinafine are hydrophobic antifungal
agents. See Lopez-Berestein, column 5, lines 33-36;
Birnbaum, page 785.
(2) Both nystatin and terbinafine were known for topical use. See
Lopez-Berestein, column 4, lines 47-51; Birnbaum, abstract.
Lopez-Berestein teaches that liposome encapsulation was
expected to increase the topical efficacy of nystatin. Column 8,
lines 34-35.
(3) Janoff suggests that nystatin and naftifine are both appropriate
antifungal agents for inclusion in liposomal formulations.
Column 12, lines 53-61. Naftifine is an analog of terbinafine.
Birnbaum, abstract.
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
replace Lopez-Berestein’s nystatin with Birnbaum’s terbinafine because both
agents were known to be hydrophobic antifungal agents, because Janoff
suggests that the terbinafine analog naftifine is suitable for liposomal
encapsulation, and because Lopez-Berestein suggests that liposomal
encapsulation would be expected to increase the antifungal efficacy of a topical
composition. These teachings would also have led a skilled artisan to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007