Appeal 2007-0181
Application 10/057,323
teaching as to potential drug-drug interactions, and argue that Medical Letter
at page 69 “discloses that it is unclear whether, like gemfibril and niacin,
concurrent administration of fenofibrate with a statin could increase the risk
of rhabdomyolysis.” (Br. 12 (emphasis in original).) Appellants assert that
“[b]ecause of the difference of the way that each component of the presently
claimed combination acts, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection is
based upon an improper combination of references.” (Id.)
Claim 21, which we choose as representative of claims 21 and 28, is
drawn to the composition of claim 1, further comprising niacin. As noted
above, all three compounds are known to lower serum cholesterol, and for
the reasons already set forth with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 11-
13, 37-40, 42, 43, 47, 48, 83, 84, and 86, the art recognized property of each
of the described agents as a cholesterol lowering agent would have provided
one of ordinary skill in the art with ample suggestion of their combination in
the composition as claimed.
We also do not find convincing Appellants’ arguments that the
references provide no teaching as to potential drug-drug interactions, and
that Medical Letter at page 69 teaches that it is unclear whether, like
gemfibril and niacin, concurrent administration of fenofibrate with a statin
could increase the risk of rhabdomyolysis. Medical Letter teaches that:
Like other fibrates, fenofibrate potentiates the effects of oral
anticoagulants. Whether, like gemfibrozil and niacin, it could
increase the risk of rhabdomyolysis when taken concurrently
with a statin is unclear.
(Medical Letter 69).
Thus, the concern in Medical Letter is the combination of fenofibrate,
gemfibrozil, or niacin with statins, but statins are not required by the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013