Appeal 2007-0741
Application 09/313,625
estrogenic effects in others, depending on the particular SERM, the dose, the
regimen, and the endogenous hormonal environment, we are not persuaded
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to superimpose a
progestogenic compound on an anti-estrogenic compound. After all, as
Young teaches, uterine bleeding is a frequent side-effect of combination
estrogen-progestin therapy, despite the presence of the progestin.
We find that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case that
the claimed invention would have been obvious over the cited prior art, and
we reverse the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
lbg
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY LLP
1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
41ST FLOOR
NEW YORK NY 10036-2714
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013