Appeal No. 2001-2646 Page 2
Application No. 08/463,951
the examiner has indicated that these claims would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. See Paper No. 18, mailed June 16, 2000, page 4.
Claims 58 and 61 are representative of the subject matter on appeal are
reproduced in the attached appendix.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Cho et al. (‘009) 5,530,009 Jun. 25, 1996
Rouissi et al. (Rouissi), “Selectivity and Specificity of New, Non-peptide,
Quinuclidine Antagonists of Substance P,” Biochemical and Biophysical
Research Communications, Vol. 176, No. 2, pp. 894-901 (1991)
Kucharczyk et al. (Kucharczyk), “Tetrapeptide Tachykinin Antagonists: Synthesis
and Modulation of the Physicochemical and Pharmacological Properties of a
New Series of Partially Cyclic Analogs,” J. Med. Chem., Vol. 36, pp. 1654-1661
(1993)
Maggi et al. (Maggi), ”Tachykinin receptors and tachykinin receptor antagonists,”
J. Auton. Pharmacol., Vol. 13, pp. 23-93 (1993)
Claims 7-10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 28-42, 49-59, 61, 62, 64, and 65 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as nonenabled.
Claims 7-9, 20, 21, 28-30, 36, 39, 49-51, 57-59, 61, 62, 64, and 65 stand
rejected for obviousness-type double patenting over the claims of U.S. Patent
5,530,009.
We affirm the rejection for obviousness-type double patenting and reverse
the rejection for nonenablement.
Background
Tachykinins are a family of peptides that share a common amidated
carboxy-terminal sequence. See the specification, page 1. “Tachykinins are
widely distributed in both the central and peripheral nervous systems, are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007