Appeal No. 2001-1051 Page 2
Application No. 08/185,079
bis[5-isopropylamidino-2-benzimidazolyl]ethane; bis[5-(2-imidazolyl)-2-
benzimidazolyl]methane and bis[5-amidino-2-benzimidazolyl]methane. See
claims 17 and 28. Claim 23, the only other dependent claim, is drawn
specifically to “[a] method of treating HIV infection in a subject having an HIV
infection, comprising administering to said subject an effective HIV infection
combatting [sic] amount of a compound according to Formula (I) . . . or a
pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.”
The examiner relies upon the following references:
Tidwell et al. (Tidwell I) 4,324,794 Apr. 13, 1982
Tidwell et al. (Tidwell II) 4,397,863 Aug. 09, 1983
Tidwell et al. (Tidwell III) 4,619,942 Oct. 28, 1986
Vonderfecht et al. (Vonderfecht) “Protease Inhibitors Suppress the In-Vitro and
In-Vivo replication of Rotavirus,” Journal of Clinical Investigation,
Vol. 82, pp. 2011-2016
Claims 12-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of Tidwell I, II or III as combined with Vonderfecht. After
careful review of the record and consideration of the issue before us, we reverse.
DISCUSSION
Claims 12-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of Tidwell I, Tidwell II or Tidwell III as combined with
Vonderfecht.
Tidwell I, II and III are cited for teaching that the claimed compounds are
known antiviral agents. The rejection acknowledges that the cited prior art
“differs from the claimed invention by failing to recite the claimed HIV etiological
agent.” Examiner’s Answer, page 3.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007