Ex Parte Mazur - Page 7


             Appeal No.  2004-0394                                                        Page 7                     
             Application No.   09/915,467                                                                            
                           education monographs, videotapes and the like which may                                   
                           describe the risks and benefits associated with taking the particular                     
                           drug.                                                                                     
                           Consistent with Elsayed’s emphasis on education, Elsayed                                  
                    discloses (column 9, lines 21-29),                                                               
                                                                                                                    
                           The drug is preferably supplied to the pharmacy (as well as the                           
                           patient) in packaging, such as individual blister packs, which                            
                           includes warnings regarding the risks associated with the drug, as                        
                           well as the importance of various aspects of the present methods                          
                           such as, for example, pregnancy testing and the use of                                    
                           contraception (in the case of teratogenic drugs), and the dangers                         
                           associated with sharing the drug with others, among other aspects.                        
             V.  Long-felt need satisfied by another prior to appellant’s date of invention:                         
                    Appellant recognizes that the Decision states at page 10 “in our opinion, the                    
             long-felt need was recognized and satisfied by another before the date of the                           
             appellant’s invention[2].”  Request, page 6.  Nevertheless, appellant asserts (id.), “[t]he             
             DECISION fails to provide any support for this subjective factual assertion (the DECISION               
             fails to say exactly who satisfied this, and when).”                                                    
                    Initially, we note that appellant discloses (specification, page 5), “I have found               
             that one can make teratogenic pharmaceuticals more safe, by combining them as a unit                    
             with a contraceptive. …  In so doing, it minimizes the risk that a patient will become                  
             pregnant while taking the teratogen.”  As set forth on page 11 of the Decision, “Abrams                 
             discloses a combination isotretinion – contraceptive composition.”  As set forth on page                
             8 of the Decision (alteration original),                                                                
                    as discussed above, Abrams, recognized that “[i]sotretinion and analogs                          
                    and isomers used for the treatment of postular acne has a severe danger                          
                                                                                                                     
             2 We recognize appellant’s statement (Request, page 4, fn. 2), “the record has not addressed ‘the date of
             [a]ppellant’s invention’; we deal here only with the date of constructive reduction to practice – the   
             application filing date (July 2001).”  We note, however, that the date of invention is presumed to be the
             filing date of the application until an earlier date is proved.  See e.g., Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-
             Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 449, 230 USPQ 416, 420 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Vas-Cath Inc. v.          
             Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  Since there is no evidence on    
             this record regarding an earlier date of invention, we fail to see appellant’s point.                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007