Appeal 2007-0181
Application 10/057,323
composition of claim 21. In addition, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success, not absolute predictability of success. In re
O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
As to claim 32, Appellants argue neither Rosenblum, Medical Letter,
nor Katzung, taken alone or together suggests a triple combination treatment
of a sterol absorption inhibitor such as ezetimibe, a PPAR activator such as
fenofibrate, and at least one cardiovascular agent selected from the group of
calcium channel blockers, adrenergic blockers, adrenergic stimulants,
angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, antihypertensive, angiotensin II
receptor antagonists, anti-anginal agents, coronary vasodilators, diuretics,
and combinations thereof (Br. 13).
We agree with Appellants. Claim 32 is drawn to the composition of
claim 1, further comprising “at least one cardiovascular agent selected from
the group of calcium channel blockers, adrenergic blockers, adrenergic
stimulants, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, antihypertensive,
angiotensin II receptor antagonists, anti-anginal agents, coronary
vasodilators, diuretics, and combinations thereof.” The Examiner has made
no findings as to the inclusion of any of the listed agents, and we are thus
compelled to reverse the rejection. KSR., 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at
1396 (noting in order to facilitate review of the obviousness determination,
the “analysis should be made explicit.”).
As to claim 34, Appellants argue neither Rosenblum, Medical Letter,
nor Katzung, taken alone or together suggests a pharmaceutical composition
for the treatment of a vascular condition, diabetes, obesity, or lowering a
concentration of a sterol in plasma of a mammal, using the composition of
claim 1 and a carrier (Br. 13).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013