Appeal No. 2006-1066 Page 11
Application No. 09/810,109
With regard to claims 12 and 13, the examiner argued that Hata and Zappla each
“teach that their methods are effective to treat all humans in need thereof, and
therefor[e] it would [have been] obvious to practice the method on any human of any
age, as all patients in need thereof are treated by the art’s methods.” The examiner
went on to argue that: “[i]t is well established that merely selecting proportions and
ranges of a prior art method is not patentable absent a showing of criticality.”
Examiner’s Answer, page 9, line 21, to page 10, line 6. Appellant argues that the age-
based limitations of claims 12 and 13 are significant because these groups may be
difficult to treat and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness has not been
established. Appeal Brief, page 16, line 11, to page 17, line 5.
As discussed above, Zappla describes administering CDP-choline derivatives to
alcoholics. In addition, Hata describes administering uridine diphosphate glucoronic
acid to human beings with chronic alcoholism. Neither reference teaches that the
disclosed methods are effective only for people in a specific age range. Thus, we agree
with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
administer these compounds to a human being of any age in need of the treatment,
including a human being in the age ranges recited in claims 12 and 13. Appellant has
provided no evidence to show that those skilled in the art would have reason to doubt
that the methods disclosed by Zappla and Hata would be successful when applied to
patients in the age ranges recited in claims 12 and 13. Therefore, we affirm § 103
rejection of claims 12 and 13.
Summary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007