Appeal No. 2004-1478 Page 2
Application No. 10/099,356
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Plunkett et al. (Plunkett) Re. 36,247 Jul. 6, 1999
Claims 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Plunkett.
We reverse.
Background
The specification discloses that estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) is known to
be beneficial for, among other thing, prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis (page
2) and that ERTs available in the United States and/or Europe include conjugated
equine estrogens, which are sold under the brand name Premarin® and available in
dosages of 0.3, 0.625, 0.9, 1.25, and 2.5 mg (page 3).
The specification also discloses that the lowest effective does of estrogen
should be used in order to reduce side effects and that administration of a progestin
along with estrogen prevents endometrial cancer. Page 4. Co-administration of
progestin, however, can cause other undesirable effects. Id. Appellants sought “to
provide the significant benefits of a commercially successful ERT product, such as
PREMARIN . . ., while lowering the dosage of conjugated estrogens below that which
has previously been demonstrated to be effective.” Id., page 5.
Discussion
Claim 12, the only independent claim on appeal, is directed to a method of
treating or preventing, for example, osteoporosis by administering 0.1 to 0.25 mg/day of
conjugated estrogens “without concomitant administration of a progestin.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007