Appeal No. 2004-0761 Page 2
Application No. 09/794,531
Background
”∆5-Androstenediol (AED) is a naturally-occurring metabolite of
dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), the most abundant product of the adrenal
glands. . . . AED exists in two epimeric forms: ∆5-androstene-3-β,17α-diol
(αAED) and ∆5-androstene-3-β,17β-diol (βAED). . . . βAED has
immunostimulating properties and immune upregulating properties. αAED has
been shown to induce apoptosis in transformed cells in vitro.” Specification,
page 2.
Discussion
Claim 1, the broadest claim on appeal, is directed to a two-step method of
treating cancer (or precancer, or metastatic cancer). In the first step of the
claimed method, αAED or an ether or ester derivative thereof is administered to
the patient, and in a second, subsequent step, βAED or an ether or ester
derivative is administered.
The examiner rejected all of the claims as obvious in view of Loria and
Berkow. The examiner cited Berkow, however, only for its teaching that
“aminoglutethimide and orchiectomy are useful in treating prostate cancer.”
Examiner’s Answer, page 5. This teaching seems to be relevant only to certain
dependent claims, and therefore we need not discuss Berkow further.
The examiner cited Loria’s teachings that αAED inhibits tumor growth, and
that the combination of αAED and βAED inhibited proliferation of breast cancer
cells in vitro. See the Examiner’s Answer, page 4. The examiner also noted that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007