Appeal 2007-0860
Application 10/148,535
that fact that these are distinct disorders. Again, when combined with the
teaching of Harris that it is the d-threo enantiomer of methylphenidate that
has the preferred therapeutic activity (Harris p.1), we conclude that the
combination of Harris and Carlson does not render obvious a method of
treating a bipolar disorder by administering an effective amount of l-threo-
methylphenidate in substantially single enantiomer form. The Examiner has
therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, and we are
compelled to reverse the rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we conclude that the Examiner has failed to set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness for the reasons set forth above, and the
rejection of claims 2 and 7 under 35.U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
the combination of Harris and Gross-Tsur is reversed, as is the rejection of
claims 3 and 7 under 35.U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Harris and Carlson.
REVERSED
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013