Ex Parte Herndon - Page 4



                 Appeal No. 2004-2170                                                                                       Page 4                      
                 Application No. 09/901,429                                                                                                             
                 outcome of the treatment is the same regardless . . . Since [the] same therapeutic                                                     
                 modality [is] taught and the same patient is also used in the treatment, there is no                                                   
                 difference between the claimed subject matter and the conventional treatment” (id.,                                                    
                 page 5).                                                                                                                               
                          On the surface, the examiner’s position has merit.  On cursory review, Herndon                                                
                 does appear to describe all of the manipulative steps required by the claims, and it is                                                
                 well established that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process                                                  
                 cannot render the process again patentable.  See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577,                                                  
                 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  Thus, the mere fact that “Herndon [ ] did not                                                  
                 teach or suggest [that] treatment with $-adrenergic antagonists had an inherent feature                                                
                 of improving skeletal muscle protein kinetics” (Brief, page 9) would not “render the                                                   
                 process again patentable.”                                                                                                             
                          Nevertheless, we find that the examiner has not established that Herndon’s                                                    
                 method anticipates all of “the critical elements” (Answer, page 4) of the claims.  As                                                  
                 always, “[a]nalysis begins with a key legal question –  what is the invention claimed?”                                                
                 since “[c]laim interpretation . . . will normally control the remainder of the decisional                                              
                 process,” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d                                                         
                 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987).                                                                            
                          To meet the requirements of the claims on appeal, a “pharmacologically effective                                              
                 dose” of a beta-adrenergic antagonist must be a dose effective to improve skeletal                                                     
                 muscle protein kinetics in a burn patient, as compared with an untreated patient.                                                      
                 According to the present specification, a beta-adrenergic antagonist (propranolol)                                                     
                 administered for two weeks, “improved muscle protein net balance from baseline [ ] and                                                 
                 as compared with non-treated controls” (specification, page 23).  After four weeks of                                                  
                 treatment, “[a]n acceleration in protein synthesis in propranolol treated subjects was                                                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007