Appeal 2007-1040
Application 09/960,708
presented the evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
In response, Appellants assert that Jiang’s model is not designed to
determine the effect of FK506 on established tumor growth (Br. 16).
Instead, Appellants assert that Jiang’s studies are designed to determine the
ability of an agent to inhibit papilloma formation in a mouse model (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Claim 47 is not drawn to the treatment of “established tumor growth.”
Instead, claim 47 is drawn to the inhibition of tumor growth in a host having
a neoplastic disease condition. According to Appellants’ Specification,
treatment “includes situations where the pathological condition, or at least
symptoms associated therewith, are completely inhibited, e.g.[,] prevented
from happening . . . .” Jiang teaches that the topical administration of
FK506 or cyclosporin A inhibits tumor (papilloma) formation in a mouse
model (Jiang 69, col. 2, ll. 18-20 and 23-24; Br. 16).
For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the rejection of claim
47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Jiang and Flanagan. Accordingly, the rejection is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
the rejection of claims 36-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm the rejection
of claims 46 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013