Appeal No. 2005-2671
Application No. 09/971,774
indicated in the discussion of rejection I, claims 3 and 4 are not obvious in view of
Jacobi and Monson. Thus rejection III is reversed with respect to claims 3 and 4.
IV. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
Jacobi and Monson in view of Physicians Desk Reference (PDR).
Jacobi is discussed above. Monson additionally teaches that the administration
of taurolidine and taurultam may be in combination with other anti-tumor therapeutics.
Page 3, lines 1-7. Answer, page 7.
The examiner relies on the additional reference, PDR, to meet the limitations of
single dependent claim 26, directed to the method of claim 1 wherein the method further
comprises administration of 5-FU (fluorouracil) at a dosage within the range of about
0.1-1000 mg. The PDR teaches that 5-FU has utility in the treatment of a variety of
cancers and has a suggested dosage of about 500 mg/day.
Appellants address this argument of the examiner, taking the position that the
PDR does not cure the “manifest deficiency” of the combination of Jacobi and Monson.
Brief, page 11.
In view of the above, we do not find the appellants have sufficiently rebutted the
prima facie case of obviousness established by the examiner with respect to claim 26.
The rejection of claim 26 is affirmed. For the reasons discussed above, the rejection is
also affirmed with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12, but reversed with
respect to claims 3 and 4.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007