Ex Parte Williams et al - Page 8


              Appeal No.  2005-0902                                                                    Page 8                 
              Application No. 09/529,053                                                                                      

              Hammer also teaches that combination therapy for HIV provides several advantages                                
              over treatment with a single antiviral drug.  See page s2, paragraph bridging the                               
              columns.                                                                                                        
                      In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary                          
              skill in the art, at the time the invention of claim 22 was made, to administer leflunomide                     
              at 3 to 50 mg per day to a patient having an HIV infection, in combination with one of                          
              the other antiretroviral agents described by Hammer (e.g., zidovudine in Figure 2).                             
              Motivation to do so is provided by Hammer, who teaches that treating HIV infection with                         
              a combination of antiviral agents is expected “(1) to provide additive or synergistic                           
              antiviral activity; (2) to modulate, and hopefully prevent, the emergence of resistance;                        
              (3) to minimize toxicity; and (4) to provide drug activity in different cellular and body                       
              compartments.”  We therefore agree with the examiner that the teachings of Weithmann                            
              and Hammer would have made obvious the invention of claim 22.                                                   
                      Appellants argue that                                                                                   
                      [c]laim 23 is directed to co-administration of leflunomide products with a                              
                      pyrimidine.  Leflunomide products inhibit dihydroorotate dehydrogenase, a                               
                      key enzyme in the biosynthesis of pyrimidines.  Appellants disclose and                                 
                      claim the co-administration of leflunomide products with a pyrimidine, “in                              
                      order to reduce its [the leflunomide products’] potential toxicity while                                
                      maintaining its therapeutic effectiveness.”  (Pages 20-21 of the                                        
                      Application)[.]                                                                                         
                      Neither Weithmann nor Hammer have any discussion of co-administering                                    
                      a pyrimidine with leflunomide (or with any anti-viral agent) to stimulate                               
                      DNA synthesis.  Rather, the various nucleoside analogue reverse                                         
                      transcriptase inhibitors . . . are taught to prevent, as opposed to facilitate,                         
                      DNA synthesis.  Since Hammer teaches the opposite effect of that stated                                 
                      by the Appellants, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined                             
                      Hammer with Weithmann.                                                                                  
              Appeal Brief, page 9 (alterations in original).                                                                 






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007