Appeal No. 2006-3012
Application No. 09/808,878
Appellant has not argued the claims separately. Therefore, claims 11,
12, and 69 will stand or fall with claim 7. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 7 is directed to a method of hormone replacement therapy. The
claimed method comprises administering a daily dosage of about 1.5 mg of
MPA and about 0.3 to 0.45 mg of conjugated equine estrogens
“continuously and uninterruptedly over the treatment period.” The
specification defines “continuous and uninterrupted” to mean at least once-
daily administration with no break in the treatment regimen during the
treatment period. Page 7, lines 29-32.
2. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 7, 11, 12, and 69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Plunkett.1 The Examiner reasons that Plunkett “teaches a
method of treating hot flashes comprising administering continuously and
uninterruptedly both progestogen and estrogen in daily dosage units.”
(Answer, page 3.) The Examiner points out that Plunkett teaches the
specific combination of MPA and conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) and
teaches dosage ranges of 0.3 to 2.5 mg/day for CEE and 1 to 15 mg/day for
MPA. (Id.) The Examiner also characterizes as “preferred” Plunkett’s
disclosed dosages of 1 to 2.5 mg/day of MPA and 0.300 to 0.600 mg/day of
CEE. (Id., citing “claims 34-35 [sic, 32 and 35].”)
The Examiner acknowledges that Plunkett does not teach the specific
dosage combination recited in the instant claims, but concludes:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
employ conjugated equine estrogen/medroxyprogesterone in the
1 Plunkett et al., Re. 36,247, issued Jul. 6, 1999.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013