Appeal No. 2005-2593 19
Application No. 90/005,867
slow down the aging process. We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
expected a patient’s life expectancy and life span to be increased by treating or slowing
down the aging process using a combination of human growth hormone, DHEA and
estrogen.
The appellant argues that claim 30 is not prima facie obvious over the cited
references because none of the references teaches administering more than two
hormones. Brief at 24. It is of no moment that one reference does not teach
administering human growth hormone in combination with at least two of the
supplemental hormones listed in claim 30. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ
871, 882 (CCPA 1981) (one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejection is based on a combination of references). As explained above, the
combined teachings of at least Fahy and Umbreit suggest
combining human growth hormone, DHEA and estrogen in a kit to treat or slow down the aging
process.
The appellant further argues that there is no motivation to combine human growth
hormone and at least two of the supplemental hormones listed in claim 30 because the cited
references recognize that possible health risks or adverse side effects may result from combining
hormones. Brief at 24. As discussed above, the appellant has failed to point to any evidence in
the record which establishes that combining human growth hormone, DHEA and estrogen would
have been expected to result in possible health risks or adverse side effects. See In re Schulze,
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007