Appeal No. 2001-1437
Application No. 08/764,145
effective for binding to said receptors in both a high and a low affinity state effective for
obtaining said response mixed with an inhibitor of the agonist specific to the receptors.
The inhibitor of the agonist specific to the receptors is in a second amount sufficient to
prevent desensitization of the receptor, the second amount being Ki(KDLKDH/2)-½ of the
first amount, where KDL and KDH are dissociation constants of said agonist in low and
high affinity states, respectively, and Ki is the dissociation constant of said inhibitor.
It follows that once the first drug or agonist has been selected and its dosage
amount chosen, this leads to a specific amount of drug for the inhibitor of the agonist in
the formulation of the claims. According to the specification, the “instant formulation
determines the lowest acceptable dose of inhibitor or antagonist to mix with the drug
which completely prevents desensitization.” Specification, page 13.
35 U.S.C. ' 102(b)/103(a)
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated or in the
alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Geoffroy.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the
claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Bell, 991 F.2d
781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An obviousness analysis requires
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007