Appeal No. 2006-3290 Page 7
Application No. 10/072,823
prostate cancer.” Brief, page 7. Appellant relies on four exhibits submitted with
the response received May 7, 2004 to develop this point. Directing attention to
Exhibit 16, Appellant asserts (Brief, page 9), “[i]t is well known in the
pharmaceutical arts that different types of cancer respond differently to different
anticancer agents.” Exhibit 1 does contain a single sentence that states in part
“there are more than a hundred distinct types of cancer, which can vary
substantially in their behavior and response to treatment.” Exhibit 1 does not,
however, identify which types of cancers do respond differently to treatment or
which types of treatments result in different cancer type responses.
In contrast, Ito teaches that “[t]he plants [from which the Lupulone extract
is derived] . . . are widely used for their effectiveness in the prevention and
therapy of cancer.” Ito, paragraph 46. Similarly, Matsui teaches that “the cancer
treating drug [(lupulone)] manufactured from the nontoxic harmless hops . . .
exerted excellent effects on the treatment of various kinds of cancers such as
stomach cancer, bladder cancer, and liver cancer.” Matsui, bridging paragraph,
pages 10-11, emphasis added. We find nothing in Ito or Matsui to suggest that
the anti-cancer activity of lupulone is restricted to a particular type of cancer. The
same is true of Son, ‘434 and ‘160. See e.g., ‘434, page 4, “the invention
[(oridonin)] offers a new and effective carcinostatic agent that demonstrates an
excellent life extending effect on cancer patients”; and ‘016, page 3, “[t]his
invention . . . provides the new and useful anti-tumor agents [(e.g., oridonin)]
which . . . are expected to be effective for several other tumors including cancer.”
6 THE CELL A MOLECULAR APPROACH p. 610 (Geoffrey M. Cooper, ed., 2nd ed., ASM Press,
Washington, D.C. 2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013