Appeal No. 2006-0429 Page 2
Application No. 10/348,399
Background
The specification discloses “pharmaceutical compositions for the treatment of
nicotine dependence or addiction in a mammal (e.g. human) comprising a nicotine
receptor partial agonist (NRPA) and an anti-depressant or anxiolytic agent. The term
NRPA refers to all chemical compounds which bind at neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine
specific receptor sites in mammalian tissue and elicit a partial agonist response.” Page 1.
“[P]articular NRPA compounds . . . which can be employed in the method and
pharm[aceutical] compositions of this invention, can be made by processes known in
the chemical arts, for example by the methods described in . . . WO 9935131-A1.”
Page 16, lines 16-17.
Discussion
1. Rejection on appeal
The examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Coe,1 the PDR Sinequan® entry,2 the PDR Zoloft® entry,3 and Cary.4 The
examiner reasoned, basically, that the references teach that all of the compounds
recited in the present claims are useful for treating depression and therefore those
skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine them into a single composition
for treating depression. See the Examiner’s Answer, pages 3-4.
1 Coe et al., WO 99/35131, published July 15, 1999.
2 Physicians’ Desk Reference, pp. 2366-2367 (2000). Although the examiner cited the 2000 edition of
the PDR, the Sinequan entry states that it was “[r]evised May 1996” and Appellants have not argued that
Sinequan® was not known in the art prior to this application’s effective filing date.
3 Physicians’ Desk Reference, pp. 2051-2053 (1997).
4 Cary, WO 99/17803, published April 15, 1999.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007