Appeal No. 2001-1437
Application No. 08/764,145
35 U.S.C. ' 102(b)/103
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 over Fernandes.
According to the examiner, “Fernandes demonstrates the effect of $-
adrenoreceptor antagonists on isoprenaline-induced desensitization of guinea pig
trachea in which isoprenaline is present at 25:M and an antagonist (either CI118551 or
propanolol) is present at 0.2:M... The agonist-antagonist compositions are believed to
anticipate the claimed compositions because reversal of desensitization is
demonstrated as shown in Table 4 and because the ratio of antagonist:agonist falls
within the range of about 10-1 to about 10-6, but if not, it would have been obvious to
optimize the amounts of antagonist and agonist in order to achieve the desired effect of
reversing desensitization.” Answer, pages 6-7.
Appellant argues Fernandes fails to disclose the claimed formula, and that the
experimental data are not sufficient for showing or readily deriving a precise and critical
value for the claimed desensitization-preventing agonist and antagonist optimum ratios
as claimed. Brief, page 6. “Most significantly, like Geoffroy et al., Fernandes et al. are
completely silent on the physiochemical parameters (Ki, KDH, KDL), which the routineer in
the art should or could use to determine a precisely optimum ratio.” Brief, pages 7-8.
Furthermore, appellant argues that “appellant's method (U.S. Pat. No. 5,597,699) shows
that the propanolol dose, reported by Fernandes et al. to be sufficient for reduction of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007