Appeal No. 2006-1066 Page 7
Application No. 09/810,109
the evidence did not show that carrying out the prior art method would inherently result
in treating sleep apnea.
Here, by contrast, Appellant has pointed to no difference that would result from
administering a CDP-choline derivative to an alcoholic for the purpose of treating fatty
liver, as in Zappla, or administering the same compound to the same person for the
purpose of treating alcohol dependency. Since the claimed method reasonably appears
to read on the method in the prior art, we agree with the examiner that claim 1 is
anticipated.
For these reasons, we affirm the § 102 rejection of claim 1 over Zappla. Claims
6, 7, 9, and 10 fall with claim 1.
The examiner rejected claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Hata.3 As
pointed out by the examiner, Hata states, at column 1, lines 37-39, that “alcoholism in
human beings can be treated by the administration of a uridine diphosphate glucoronic
acid.” In addition, Hata states, at column 2, lines 62-64, that the composition can be
used for the treatment of chronic alcoholism. Examiner’s Answer, page 6, lines 8-11.
The examiner reasoned that “Hata’s administration of uridine containing compounds to
chronic alcoholics would have inherently performed the method as instantly claimed.” In
particular, the examiner argued that Hata treats the same population with the same
compound in the same amounts and in the same manner as Appellant. Final Rejection,
page 4, lines 19-21.
3 Hata et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,027,017, issued May 31, 1977.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007