Ex Parte PEYMAN - Page 7



              Appeal No. 2002-0783                                                                  Page 7                
              Application No. 09/268,957                                                                                  

              about 4.                                                                                                    
                     It is our judgment, therefore, that a person having ordinary skill would have                        
              arrived at the composition sought to be patented in claim 1 with a reasonable                               
              expectation of providing a rapid onset of action1 and a controlled release of sildenafil;                   
              and promoting the bioavailability of sildenafil while minimizing adverse side effects.  We                  
              therefore affirm the examiner's decision rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).                        
                     In Section D of his Appeal Brief, applicant emphasizes the amount of sildenafil                      
              recited in claims 3 through 22.  Applicant argues that the cited references would not                       
              have suggested "from about 15 milligrams to about 50 milligrams of sildenafil" recited in                   
              dependent claim 3; or "about 10 to about 75 milligrams of sildenafil" recited in                            
              dependent claims 4 through 22.2  Again, we find it sufficient to note that the oral use of                  
              the citrate salt of sildenafil had been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug                                  
              Administration (FDA) for treating male erectile dysfunction at the time applicant's                         
              invention was made.  (Specification, page 2, lines 30-33).  In dose-response studies,                       
              increasing doses of sildenafil (25 to 100 mg) reportedly increased the erectogenic                          
              efficacy of sildenafil (Background of the Invention, applicant's specification, page 3,                     
              lines 21 through 23).  In our judgment, therefore, the amount of sildenafil recited in                      


                     1   As pointed out in the Background of the Invention section of applicant's                         
              specification, page 4, lines 13-15, "[t]he main reason for sublingual route of drug                         
              administration is to provide a rapid onset of action of potent drugs."                                      
                     2   In independent claim 1, applicant recites a composition containing "about 10                     
              to about 75 milligrams of sildenafil."  Claims 4 through 22 depend from claim 1, "and                       
              then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed."  35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth                  
              paragraph.  In each instance, that further limitation does not relate to or further restrict                
              the amount of sildenafil.                                                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007