Appeal No. 2004-0670 Page 2
Application No. 09/276,741
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Rahman et al. (Rahman) 5,424,073 Jun. 13, 1995
Bishop et al. (Bishop) 5,795,882 Aug. 18, 1995
Ramu 5,780,446 Jul. 14, 1998
Maier et al. (Maier), “Estramustine Phosphate in Secondary Hormone-Resistant
Carcinoma of the Prostate,” Eur. Urol., Vol. 17, pp. 216-218 (1990)
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 1-8, 48, 49 and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bishop, Ramu, Rahman and Maier.
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
According to the examiner (Answer, page 4), “[t]he use of estramustine
phosphate as an antineoplastic agent is well known in the art.” In support of this
assertion the examiner relies on Bishop, Ramu and Maier. In addition, the
examiner finds (id.), Maier teach a method of administering estramustine
phosphate intravenously.
With reference to Ramu, the examiner also finds (Answer, page 5), “[l]ike
taxol, estramustine phosphate has a number of drawbacks including the fact that
it is a local irritant.” In this regard, the examiner finds (id.), Rahman teach
“encapsulation of a pharmaceutical agent within a liposome minimizes some of
its side effects or drawbacks such as the ability to administer the compound as a
bolus … as well as reduction in irritation caused by said pharmaceutical.”
The rejection of claims 1-8, 48 and 49:
Based on the foregoing evidence, the examiner finds (Answer, page 4),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007