Appeal No. 2005-2593 10
Application No. 90/005,867
[sic] in man” and that “[t]he level of the daily estrogen dose ranges from 0.15 to 2.0 mg.”
Umbreit at 5, lines 20-22. However, Umbreit does not expressly identify an estrogen
replenishment level. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Umbreit does
suggest that estrogen is to be replenished to a predetermined level (25 pg/ml) and that
it would have been obvious to combine Umbreit’s estrogen therapy with Fahy, the result
would not satisfy claim 1 because the combination of Umbreit and Fahy would only
replenish one “supplemental hormone” (per the teachings of Umbreit) to a
predetermined level.6
For the reasons set forth above, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Fahy, Scow, Umbreit and
Pierpaoli is reversed. Claims 2 and 4-8 are dependent on claim 1. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 2 and 4-8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Fahy, Scow,
Umbreit and Pierpaoli is also reversed. See 37 CFR § 1.75(c) (2002).
C. Rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Fahy. Claim 10 is directed to a hormone replenishment method and reads as follows:
6 As a result, we do not reach the appellant’s additional argument that the rejection of claim 1 fails to take
into account the possibility of adverse side effects when combining different hormone therapies.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007