Appeal No. 2001-1499 Page 13
Application No. 08/957,654
Id.
I agree with the examiner’s characterization of the references and with her
conclusion that they render at least claims 1 and 7 prima facie obvious. 2 Claim 1
is directed to a method of treating a skin ulcer (venous ulcer, pressure sore,
decubitus ulcer, or diabetic ulcer) by applying a “therapeutically effective amount”
of alpha-1-antitrypsin. Dependent claim 3 clarifies that a therapeutically effective
amount of alpha-1-antitrypsin can be 10 to 1000 µg per ml. Claim 7 is directed
to a wound dressing composition comprising a “therapeutically effective amount”
of alpha-1-antitrypsin, and intended for use in treating the same skin ulcers
recited in claim 1.
Gillis discloses a method of treating chronic wounds, including “chronic
bedsores [and] ulcerative skin conditions” (column 3, lines 24-28; column 4, lines
27-31). Gillis also teaches topical composition for use in treatment (column 3,
lines 50-57). Gillis’ compositions comprise interleukin-1 (IL-1) as the active
ingredient. Gillis teaches that topical IL-1 promotes wound healing (column 2,
lines 35-39), and is useful for treating “chronic or intractable wounding
conditions” including “chronic bedsores [and] ulcerative skin conditions” (column
3, lines 24-28; column 4, lines 27-31). Gillis also teaches that “[a] variety of
additives may be incorporated into the compositions of the present invention,
2 Appellants do not separately argue the claims subject to this rejection. Claims 1 and 7 are
representative of the claims rejected over Gillis and Rao.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007