Appeal No. 2002-0455 3
Application No. 09/123,620
mammals in whom NF-κB has been triggered by inflammation, a viral disease,
radiation or an anticancer drug.” Id., pages 6-7.
Discussion
The claims are directed to a method of inhibiting NF-κB in a mammalian
cell, in which NF-κB has been activated, by administering to the mammal an
NF-κB-inhibiting amount of a drug corresponding to a particular formula.
The examiner rejected the claims as obvious in view of a prior art patent
(van’t Riet) disclosing the same compounds recited in the instant claims, and
also disclosing that the compounds are inhibitors of ribonucleotide reductase and
free radical scavengers. See the Examiner’s Answer, page 3. The examiner
also relied on Appellant’s “admission” in the specification that antioxidants were
known to inhibit activation of NF-κB. See id., page 4. She concluded that
[i]t would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to inhibit NF-κB in a mammalian cell by
administration of a hydroxybenzoic acid or derivative thereof.
Because the compounds are taught by VAN’T RIET et al. to be
ribonucleotide [reductase] inhibitors and free radical scavengers, an
ordinarily skilled chemist would immediately recognize them to be
anti-oxidants. Appellant had admitted that it was known in the art at
the time of the invention that anti-oxidants inhibit activation of
NF-κB. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled worker would have been
motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to inhibit
NF-κB in a mammalian cell by administration of a hydroxybenzoic
acid or derivative thereof.
Id.
Appellant takes issue with the examiner’s position that a skilled artisan
would recognize free radical scavengers and ribonucleotide reductase inhibitors
as antioxidants. See, e.g., the Appeal Brief at page 4: “[T]o use the term ‘anti-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007