Ex Parte Yu et al - Page 9


             Appeal No. 2004-1761                                                   Page 9                     
             Application No. 10/044,807                                                                        

             pharmaceutical compositions that were disclosed to be useful in treating acute                    
             myeloblastic leukemia.  See id. at 1323, 206 USPQ at 886.  The active ingredients in              
             the compositions were closely related to daunorubicin and doxorubicin, both of which              
             were “well recognized in the art as valuable for use in cancer chemotherapy.”  Id., 206           
             USPQ at 887.  The applicant also submitted declaratory evidence showing that eight of             
             the claimed compositions were effective in treating tumors in a mouse model, and one              
             was effective in treating humans.  See id. at 1323-24, 206 USPQ at 887-88.  The court             
             noted that the data derived from the mouse model were “relevant to the treatment of               
             humans and [were] not to be disregarded,” id. at 1327, 206 USPQ at 890, and held that             
             the evidence was sufficient to support the asserted therapeutic utility.  See id. at 1327-        
             28, 206 USPQ at 891.                                                                              
                   The Federal Circuit held in Cross v. Iizuka, 753 F.2d 1040, 224 USPQ 739 (Fed.              
             Cir. 1985), that in vivo testing (as in Jolles) was not necessarily required to show utility      
             in the pharmaceutical context.  The Cross court stated that “[it] is axiomatic that an            
             invention cannot be considered ‘useful,’ in the sense that a patent can be granted on it,         
             unless substantial or practical utility for the invention has been discovered and disclosed       
             where such utility would not be obvious.”  Id. at 1044, 224 USPQ at 742 (citing Brenner           
             v. Manson).  The court “perceive[d] no insurmountable difficulty, under appropriate               
             circumstances, in finding that the first link in the screening chain, in vitro testing, may       
             establish a practical utility for the compound in question.”  Id. at 1051, 224 USPQ at            
             748.  Successful in vitro testing could provide an immediate benefit to the public, by            
             “marshal[ling] resources and direct[ing] the expenditure of effort to further in vivo testing     
             of the most potent compounds . . ., analogous to the benefit provided by the showing of           





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007