Appeal No. 2006-1066 Page 8
Application No. 09/810,109
Appellant argues that the treatment regimes described in Hata do not inherently
anticipate the claims because the alcohol-induced damage being treated in Hata may
occur in subjects that are not alcohol dependent, e.g., in those suffering from acute
alcoholism. Thus, Appellant argues that the methods of Hata do not necessarily treat
the same population as the claims. Appeal Brief, page 10, line 11, to page 12, line 1.
As with Appellant’s argument regarding Zappla, the basic question raised is
whether Hata describes administering its compound to a mammal having alcohol
dependency, as this term is defined in the specification. We hold that it does.
As pointed out by Appellant, Hata describes the treatment of acute alcoholism,
as well as of chronic alcoholism. Hata, column 2, lines 16-18. However, the fact that
Hata describes the treatment of acute alcoholism does not negate the description in
Hata of administering uridine diphosphate glucoronic acid to treat chronic alcoholism.
We agree with the examiner that the terms “chronic alcoholism” and “alcohol
dependency” would be understood to mean basically the same thing. Thus, we hold
that Hata does describe administering uridine diphosphate glucoronic acid to a mammal
having alcohol dependency, as this term is defined in the specification.
Based on our determination that Hata describes administering its compound to
mammals having alcohol dependency, we conclude that the examiner has set forth a
prima facie case that Hata anticipates claim 1. In addition, Appellant has not provided
any evidence that the compound and amounts thereof described in Hata do not
inherently treat alcohol dependency. Thus, we affirm the § 102 rejection of claim 1 over
Hata. Claim 11 falls with claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007