Appeal No. 2001-1437
Application No. 08/764,145
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Examiner's
Answer for the examiner=s complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the
appellant's Brief and Reply Brief for the appellant's arguments thereagainst. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Background
Appellant “solve[s] the problem of determining the optimal concentration of an
antagonist or inhibitor which is necessary to prevent cellular receptor desensitization
without causing unnecessary or unwanted inhibition.” Specification, page 5. Appellant
prepares a “formulation [which] combines a competitive antagonist with an agonist for/of
a particular receptor in a specific proportion that maximizes the receptor response to the
agonist and maintains this maximum response. This formulation describes precisely the
concentration of the antagonist relative to that of the agonist.” Specification, pages 5-6.
Thus, appellant claims a formulation (composition) that elicits a desired response
from cellular receptors and prevents subsequent desensitization of said receptors. The
formulation includes an agonist suitable for eliciting said response in a first amount
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007