Appeal No. 2001-1437
Application No. 08/764,145
with appellant that the examiner has failed to establish with sufficient evidence, a prima
facie case of anticipation and/or obviousness. What is missing from the examiner's
analysis is a specific indication of where the cited reference describes a specific
formulation which includes a specific amount of inhibitor to prevent desensitization of a
receptor in relation to a specific amount and type of drug administered (the lowest
acceptable dose of inhibitor or antagonist to mix with the drug which completely
prevents desensitization). We disagree with the examiner's conclusion that because
the principle of desensitization is generically disclosed in Geoffroy, in particular the dose
dependence of the effects of agonist and antagonist upon desensitization, that this
would have directed one of ordinary skill in the art specifically to an optimum amount of
antagonist to prevent desensitization of a specific amount of the specific drug chosen.
In his rebuttal argument appellant tries to elucidate this point, arguing that “none
of the references in the case disclose any fact or notion that a cellular receptor can be
“immunized” against desensitization from the inception of delivery of the agonist-
antagonist formulation. Clearly no precise formulation having this attribute nor the
continuing maximal cellular responsiveness, as claimed, is disclosed or even intimated.”
Reply Brief, pages 3-4.
Appellant argues (Reply Brief, page 6):
The probability of selecting a point representing the optimum ratio of
agonist to antagonist is vanishingly small because there are an infinite
number of points on a line. To find the precise point, as in applicant's
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007