Appeal No. 2002-1728 Page 5
Application No. 09/339,239
the combined disclosures of Eisenberg and Chiang, is affirmed.
Claims 19 through 23 and 25, however, stand on different footing.
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and adds the further limitation "wherein the
daily effective dose is administered in two portions for four weeks." Claim 20 also
depends from claim 18 and adds the limitation "wherein the daily effective dosage of
IFN-$ is administered in a plurality of individual doses per day for a predetermined
number of days, and subsequently administered in one portion per day." In our
judgment, the cited prior art is insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness of
claims containing those limitations. On this record, the examiner has not established
that the combination of Chiang with either Krogsgaard, Park, or Eisenberg would have
led a person having ordinary skill to the specific methods recited in claims 19 and 20.
As indicated, those claims require a specific regimen or protocol for treating hepatitis B.
Claims 21 and 22 depend from claim 19 and add further limitations. Likewise,
claims 23 and 25 depend from "any one of claims 20 to 22," or 23, respectively, and
also add further limitations. Again, the examiner has not established that the
combination of Chiang with either Krogsgaard, Park, or Eisenberg would have led a
person having ordinary skill to the specific methods recited in claims 21 through 23 and
25.
The rejection of claims 19 thorugh 23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Krogsgaard, Park, or Eisenberg, either of those "primary" references
considered in view of Chiang, is reversed.
Accordingly, the examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007