Appeal No. 2004-1790 Page 2
Application No. 09/836,971
12. A method of preventing colon or rectum cancer comprising
administering to a mammal a therapeutically effective amount of a
non-fermented osmotic polyol laxative.
The examiner relies upon the following reference:
Crowson et al. (Crowson), “The use and efficacy of cytocidal agents in colorectal
Cancer,” Surg. Res. Comm., Vol. 2, pp. 97-101 (1987).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing
to provide an enabling disclosure. In addition, claims 6, 8, 12 and 14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Crowson, and claims
9-11 and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Crowson. After careful review of the record and consideration of the issues
before us, we reverse.
DISCUSSION
1. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The
statement of the rejection states that the grounds of the rejection are that “the
specification, while being enabling for treating colon or rectum cancer with PEG
or pluronic does not reasonably provide enablement for treating colon or rectum
cancer with all non-fermenting osmotic laxatives.” Examiner’s Answer, page 4.
At the end of the rejection, however, see id. at 6, and again in the response to
arguments, see id. at 8, the examiner states that the rejection is directed to the
use of the claimed method in preventing cancer. We thus limit our analysis of
the rejection to the use of the claimed method in preventing cancer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007