Appeal No. 2002-0253
Application No. 09/093,450
can submit objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as evidence of unexpected
results. In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 749, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, the
showing of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed
invention. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). This the
appellants have not done. We point out that none of the claims is directed to a method
of treating rheumatoid arthritis using “sub-optimal dosages of cyclosporin.” Thus, in the
case before us, the prior art need only to teach or suggest a method of treating
rheumatoid arthritis which comprises the use of a therapeutically-effective amount of
cyclosporin to render the claimed invention obvious.
Accordingly, Rejection II is affirmed.
B. The examiner has rejected claims 15-17 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Le, Ackerman and the appellants’ admission on pp. 13-15 and 19-25
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007