Appeal No. 2006-1304 Page 7
Application No. 10/214,058
Page 133, right-hand column. Notwithstanding that Jukema shows the professional
caution expected in such publications, we agree with the examiner that the reference
would have suggested, to those skilled in the art, the combination of atorvastatin with
amlodipine. Several factors support this conclusion.
First, Jukema would have suggested amlodipine to those skilled in the art
because Jukema’s study involved only four named calcium-channel blockers:
nifedipine, amlodipine, diltiazem, and verapamil. Thus, those skilled in the art would
have recognized that Jukema’s conclusion that “the addition of CCBs to 3-hydroxy-3-
methyl-glutaryl-coenzyme[A] reductase inhibitor therapy (pravastatin) acts
synergistically in retarding the progression of established coronary atherosclerosis”
(abstract), applies equally to each of the four named CCBs. Cf. In re Petering, 301 F.2d
676, 681-82, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962) (disclosure of a small genus is
equivalent to disclosure of each member of the genus).
Second, Jukema would have reasonably suggested to those skilled in the art the
substitution of atorvastatin for Jukema’s pravastatin, because those skilled in the art
appear to have considered all statins to be roughly equivalent. The instant specification
itself supports this conclusion, in its statement that “[s]tatins inhibit HMG-CoA reductase
from catalyzing this conversion. As such, statins are collectively potent lipid lowering
agents.” Page 1 (emphasis added). The specification provides evidence that, at the
time the application was filed, statins were considered as a group to have similar lipid-
lowering effects.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007