Appeal No. 2006-3200 Page 6
Application No. 10/196,428
“All the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated . . . a reference is not
limited to the disclosure of specific working examples.” In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649,
651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA 1972). Therefore we disagree with Appellants’
assertion (Brief, page 9) that “but for the present invention, there would be no
specific motivation to administer a compound of formula (1) to a rheumatoid
arthritis patient, nor would there be an expectation of the advantages obtained
thereby.” In our opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
Chao provides a reasonable expectation of successfully treating all disorders
identified, including rheumatoid arthritis, by administering a composition
comprising a HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, such as pravastatin, and a
pharmaceutically acceptable additive. Appellants fail to direct our attention to
any evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Luchetti, Appellants assert that the reference “merely show[s]
a correlation between elevated PTX3 gene expression and rheumatoid arthritis”
but fails to suggest that PTX3 gene expression could be suppressed with
a HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor. Brief, page 7. In Appellants’ opinion, “[t]he only
way that the combination of these references can even support a prima facie
case of obviousness is if suppression of PTX3 gene expression is necessarily
correlated with treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.” Id. We disagree. As
discussed above, Chao teaches the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis by
administering a composition comprising 0.1-100 mg of a HMG-CoA reductase
inhibitor and a pharmaceutically acceptable additive. According to Appellants’
claimed method, a composition comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013