Ex Parte Stapleton et al - Page 4


                 Appeal No.  2005-1797                                                         Page 4                  
                 Application No.  09/954,975                                                                           
                 In this regard, the examiner points out (id.) that appellants acknowledge “that                       
                 inhibition of ribonucleotide reductase inhibits HIV replication and that                              
                 ribonucleotide reductase inhibitors potentiate the activity of dideoxynucleotides                     
                 which are nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors….”                                              
                        The examiner also finds (id.), Collery “teach that gallium complexes are                       
                 effective in treating HIV and that gallium nitrate inhibits reverse transcriptase                     
                 found in retroviruses, such as HIV….”  In addition, we note that Collery teaches                      
                 (column 1, lines 33-38), “preclinical toxicology tests suggest that renal and                         
                 hepatic damages might be expected with gallium nitrate … [but,] gallium III,                          
                 administered … in the form of an aqueous formulation of GaCl3 at the                                  
                 therapeutical dosages involves no renal toxicity….”  In this regard, Collery                          
                 teaches that gallium (III) complexes not only have antitumor activity, but antiviral                  
                 activities as well.  Collery, column 1, lines 39-40.                                                  
                        Based on this evidence2 the examiner finds (Final Rejection, page 5), a                        
                 person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have                     
                 found the claimed method prima facie obvious in view of the combination of                            
                 Narashimhan and Collery.  In this regard, we note that “[t]he test for obviousness                    
                 is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all of the references                    
                 but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of                           


                                                                                                                       
                 2 We recognize that the examiner also relies on Bernstein (Final Rejection, page 5), to teach “that   
                 gallium complexes of hydroxypyrones exhibit increased oral availability and are also suitable for     
                 administration intravenously….”  It appears that the examiner relies on Bernstein to reach the        
                 subject matter of e.g., claim 15 which depends from and further limits gallium composition of         
                 claim 11 to a gallium-hydroxypyrone complex.  Since claims 12-30, 33, 34, and 36-40 stand for         
                 fall together with claim 11, we find it unnecessary to discuss the Bernstein reference for its        
                 teaching of a gallium-hydroxypyrone complex.                                                          





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007