Appeal No. 2003-1416 Page 3
Application No. 09/819,549
for affirming the decision of the Examiner differs from that of the Examiner, we denominate our
affirmance as involving a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b). Our reasons
follow.
OPINION
The sole step in method claim 14 is a step of administering an effective amount of a
vasopeptidase inhibitor to a human patient. The “effective amount” is an amount effective to
treat isolated systolic hypertension.
MEDLINE 858 reports on studies conducted in Atlanta in which the vasopeptidase
inhibitor omapatrilat was administered to human patients. MEDLINE 858 reports that
omapatrilat “presented a clear lowering of the systolic and the diastolic blood pressure over 24 h
with a single dose.” In fact, the reference states that “[t]he results indicated a superior blood
pressure lowering effect, especially for the systolic blood pressure.” The data presented indicates
a lowering of between 19 and 28 mm Hg. We find that the administration of the vasopeptidase
inhibitor in amounts effective to lower systolic pressure as described in MEDLINE 858 meets all
the limitations of the method of claim 14. Thus, MEDLINE 858 anticipates the claimed method
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).3 Moreover, EMBASE 767 offers further evidence that the systolic
3EMBASE 767 and MEDLINE 858 prima facie qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as these
articles say nothing specific about inventorship. See In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455, 215 USPQ 14, 18 (CCPA 1982).
Appellants have not disputed the status of the references as prior art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007