Appeal No. 2007-0091
Application No. 09/765,491
Appellant argues that acne rosacea refers to “acne characterized by
redness,” not rosacea. (Br. 11.) In support of this argument, Appellant cites
a printout from the website of the National Rosacea Society, which states
(final page) that “rosacea has sometimes been referred to as ‘adult acne.’”
(Id.)
We will affirm this rejection. Wirostko teaches that tetracyclines have
been “used chronically as therapy for diverse diseases including acne rosacea
(Brown SI et al, Diagnosis and treatment of ocular rosacea, Ophthalmology.
1978; 85:779-786) which is commonly seen in the elderly.” Col. 2, ll, 27-31.
The Examiner cites McDaniel2 as evidence that “acne rosacea” is another
name for rosacea. McDaniel states that “[r]osacea, originally termed acne
rosacea, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition affecting the face and
eyelids of certain middle-aged adults.” Col. 1, ll. 12-14.
Appellant’s evidence states only that rosacea has been referred to as
“adult acne,” not that “acne rosacea” refers to acne. The evidence of record
therefore supports the Examiner’s position that Wirostko shows that
tetracyclines were known in the art for treatment of rosacea.
Appellant also argues that Wirostko discloses use of tetracycline to
treat macular degeneration of the retina, which would involve different
dosages and formulations than those used to treat skin; therefore, “[t]he
disclosure of Wirostko does not enable a skilled artisan to use tetracycline as
an angiogenesis inhibitor for the treatment of acne rosacea.” (Reply Br. 5.)
This argument is also unpersuasive. “In patent prosecution, the
examiner is entitled to reject application claims as anticipated by a prior art
2 McDaniel, U.S. Patent 5,952,372, issued Sept. 14, 1999.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013