Appeal No. 2006-0429 Page 3
Application No. 10/348,399
Appellants have argued, however, that those skilled in the art would not have
been led to combine all the cited references because the compounds taught by Coe are
nicotine receptor agonists and the ones taught by Cary are nicotine receptor
antagonists; given these directly conflicting modes of action, those skilled in the art
would not have been led to combine them. See the Appeal Brief, pages 6-8.
Appellants’ argument raises serious questions about whether the examiner’s
prima facie case could be sustained. We choose not to answer those questions,
however, because we believe that the references provide more pertinent teachings than
those relied on by the examiner. We therefore vacate the examiner’s rejection and
enter the following new grounds of rejection.
2. Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9 are on appeal. Claims 8 and 10-21 are also pending but have
been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner.
Claims 1-5 and 9 read as follows:
1. A pharmaceutical composition for treating nicotine dependence or
addiction, tobacco dependence or addiction, reducing nicotine withdrawal
symptoms or aiding in the cessation or lessening of tobacco use or
substance abuse, comprising a therapeutically effective combination of a
nicotine receptor partial agonist and an anti-depressant or anxiolytic
agent, and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
2. The pharmaceutical composition according to Claim 1, wherein said anti-
depressant is selected from tricyclic anti-depressant, a serotonin reuptake
inhibitor anti-depressant, an atypical anti-depressant or a monoamine
oxidase inhibitor, their pharmaceutically active salts and their optical
isomers.
3. The pharmaceutical composition according to Claim 2, wherein said anti-
depressant is selected from amitryptyline, imipramine, sertraline,
paroxetine, fluoxetine, buproprion, nefazodone, tranylcypromine,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007