Appeal No. 2007-0054
Application No. 08/846,722
In particular, Appellants argue that the “treatment of inflammatory
disorders in the lung is very different from the treatment of inflammatory
disorders in the nose and sinuses because of the different cell types and
routes of metabolism.” (Br. 6.) Specifically, Appellants state that:
In the sinuses, nitric oxide and hydrogen peroxide are produced
by epithelial cells which produce 1000x more nitric oxide and
hydrogen peroxide than that produced in lung cells. . . . Thus
the use of inflammatory mediators such as pyruvate or pyruvate
precursors in the lungs and in the sinuses is quite different. In
the lungs, excess pyruvate is transported into the cell and used
as energy. . . . In the sinuses, excess pyruvate is used up in
seconds by the very high concentrations of oxygen radicals.
The main function of pyruvate and pyruvate precursors in the
sinuses is to protect sinus medicines from destruction and to
lower excess oxygen radicals.
(Id.)
Appellants also argue that, “[a]t best, Amschler et al. may teach that
3-amino-6-arylpyridazine compounds may be used to treat inflammatory
disorders both in the lung and in the nose but Amschler et al. certainly does
not teach that ALL compounds known to treat inflammatory disorders in the
lung may be used in a similar manner to treat inflammatory disorders in the
nose.” (Br. 6-7.) Appellants argue that the “synthetic 3-amino-6-
arylpyridazine compounds of Amschler et al. are in no way comparable to
appellants’ natural pyruvate compounds.” (Br. 8-9.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Although Katz specifically
describes treatments of inflammatory disorders of the lung, we agree with
the Examiner that Katz is broader than this teaching. Katz generally teaches
treating disease states caused by mammalian cells involved in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013