Appeal No. 2005-2593 22
Application No. 90/005,867
The appellant argues claims 31 and 32 as a group. Brief at 6. Therefore, the
rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
K. Rejection of claim 33
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Fahy, Scow, Umbreit and Pierpaoli. Claim 33 reads as follows:
33. The kit of claim 30, wherein said sex hormone comprises at
least one of testosterone, progesterone, and estrogen.
As discussed above, Umbreit discloses administering estrogen to a patient. The
appellant has failed to establish otherwise. Therefore, the rejection of claim 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
L. Rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Fahy, Scow, Umbreit and Pierpaoli. Claim 34 reads as follows:
34. The kit of claim 30, wherein said adrenal hormone comprises
dehydroepiandrosterone and pregnenolone.
The appellant argues that the references in combination fail to teach or suggest a
kit containing an adrenal hormone comprising dehydroepiandrosterone and
pregnenolone. Brief at 25; Reply Brief at 27. We agree. Fahy discloses administering
DHEA to a patient but does not
disclose administering pregnenolone. The teachings of Scow, Umbreit and Pierpaoli fail
to cure this deficiency in Fahy. Therefore, the rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. §
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007