Appeal 2007-1033
Application 10/091,061
or a pharmaceutically-acceptable hydrate, solvate, or geometric, optical, or
stereoisomer of Compound (1), wherein the administration will provide a
greater anti-cancer effect than the effect obtainable with either the dosage
unit of capecitabine or the dosage unit of Compound (1) alone.
Thus, claim 117 is directed to a method of treating one of several
specified cancers in a mammal by administering capecitabine and
Compound 1. Claim 117 also recites that the combination of capecitabine
and Compound 1 provides greater anti-cancer effect than either compound
alone.
2. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Danishefsky 6,867,305 B2 Mar. 15, 2005
Vite WO 99/02514 Jan. 21, 1999
Miwa, “Design of a Novel Oral Fluoropyrimidine Carbamate, Capecitabine,
which Generates 5-Fluorouracil Selectively in Tumours by Enzymes
Concentrated in Human Liver and Cancer Tissue,” European Journal of
Cancer, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1274-1281 (1998)
The Merck Index, Cancer Chemotherapy Drug Regimens, the Merck Index,
12th Edition, pp. Misc-10, (1996)
3. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 101-111 and 113-130 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Vite in view of The Merck Index and Miwa. In addition,
claims 102-104 and 117-125 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Danishefsky in view of Miwa. Appellant appeals the
rejections of claims 117-130.
The Examiner relies on Vite for disclosing that Compound 1 “is
useful in treating various types of cancers or tumors” and that this compound
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013