Appeal No. 2005-2593 7
Application No. 90/005,867
DHEA should be given “to effect.” “To effect” is defined as
sufficient to lower that particular patient’s insulin levels down to either
basal levels or, if basal levels are elevated in comparison to an accepted
standard for good health and long life, to levels deemed to maximize
longevity and health.
See also claim 2 of Fahy (“said second component [DHEA] is administered at doses
sufficient to maintain serum insulin levels at about the levels found in normal, healthy
patients”).
At most, Fahy suggests that one supplemental hormone (DHEA) is determined to
be below a predetermined level. Furthermore, Fahy does not disclose that any of the
supplemental hormones listed in claim 1 are replenished to predetermined levels.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Fahy is reversed. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.) ("A claim is anticipated only if each and every element
as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single
prior art reference.”), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
Claims 2, 7 and 8 are dependent on claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2,
7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fahy is also reversed. See
37 CFR § 1.75(c) (2002) (“Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all
the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim.”).
B. Rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Fahy, Scow, Umbreit and Pierpaoli.
The examiner relies on the teachings of Scow, Umbreit and Pierpaoli to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007