Appeal No. 2006-3012
Application No. 09/808,878
recited in claim 7 and teaches specific dosage ranges that are less than the
disclosed “preferred” dosages.
Finally, Plunkett teaches that patients should be given only as much
hormone as necessary to achieve the desired result (col. 4, ll. 1-5):
The actual unit dosages are selected according to conventionally
known methods, e.g. body weight of patient and biological
activity of the hormones, with the ultimate goal of producing the
desired result with the minimum quantities of hormones.
Thus, Plunkett directs those skilled in the art to use the minimum
dosage needed to produce the desired effect. We agree with the examiner
that these teachings would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art
a method of treating hot flushes by continuously administering about
1.5 mg/day of MPA in combination with about 0.3 to 0.45 mg/day of CEE;
i.e., the method recited in claim 7.
Appellant argues that Plunkett “does not provide any suggestion or
motivation to use the claimed lower dosage amount of CEE and MPA.” (Br.
6.) Appellant also argues that “one skilled in the art would have to perform
undue experimentation to arrive at Appellant’s particular low dose
combination among the vast possibilities contemplated by Plunkett.” (Id. at
7.) Along the same line, Appellant argues that those skilled in the art would
not have been led to optimize the dosages in Plunkett’s method because “in
designating the preferred amounts, Plunkett et al. taught that those particular
amounts were the optimal amounts.” (Reply Br., page 3.)
This argument is not persuasive. While Plunkett discloses that a
variety of estrogens and progestogens would be suitable for use in the
disclosed method, it describes the specific combination of CEE and MPA as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013