Appeal No. 2005-0027
Application No. 09/777,874
also appear in Tables 4 and 5, comparing hypertriglyceridaemia and
hypercholesterolemia reductions.
In view of the above, we do not find the appellant has put forth sufficient
evidence to rebut the examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. The results set forth
in the Declaration and discussed above, would reasonably appear to be expected
results in view of the prior art. Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness
just as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness. See In re Skoner,
517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975). No synergistic result is shown in
the Declaration evidence in view of the closest prior art.
The rejection of claim 11 over Hastings in view of Wiegand or Burtle is affirmed.
Claims 12-18, 20-24 and 31 fall with claim 11.
Claims 25, 26 and 27
Claim 25 is directed to a method for facilitating the metabolism of lipids,
comprising administering to a subject in need thereof, an effective amount of the
composition of claim 11.
As set forth above, we have found the composition of claim 11 obvious in view of
Hastings and Wiegand. Hastings describes at column 2, lines 14-28 that its
composition helps burn fat stores and reduce the synthesis of fats. Hastings states that
“L-carnitine also reduces fatigue, is used in the treatment of atherosclerotic heart
diseases, advantageously increases HDL cholesterol while lowering LDL cholesterol,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007