Appeal 2007-1155
Application 10/230,575
IV-TR” (Specification 12: ¶ 43). Therefore, as we understand it, while
cognitive deterioration may lead to dementia, cognitive deterioration and
dementia (including dementia of the Alzheimer’s type) represent two
separately definable ailments. Accordingly, the claimed method intends to
treat a DS patient exhibiting cognitive deterioration before the deterioration
reaches the dementia stage.
The Examiner relies on Schatzber ‘596 to teach a method for treating
dementia or Alzheimer’s disease in an adult patient by administering an
effective amount of a glucocorticoid receptor antagonist (Answer 3-4). The
Examiner recognizes, however, that Schatzberg ‘596 does not teach the
treatment of “cognitive deterioration in an adult patient with Down’s
syndrome” (Answer 4). To make up for this deficiency in Schatzberg ‘596,
the Examiner relies on Sekijima to teach the prevalence of dementia of the
Alzheimer’s type in DS patients (Answer 4).
Based on this evidence, the Examiner finds that “[i]t would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to employ the same active compounds in the same effective amount in
a method of inhibiting cognitive deterioration in an adult [p]atient with
Down’s syndrome” (Answer 4-5).
In response, Appellant asserts that both Schatzberg ‘596 and Sekijima
address “dementia, such as dementia of [the] Alzheimer type (DAT)” and
therefore provide no motivation or reasonable expectation of success in
treating cognitive deterioration in DS patients (Br. 7). We agree.
Schatzberg ‘596 is directed to “a method of treating dementia in an
individual diagnosed as having symptoms of dementia. . .” (Schatzberg ‘596
3). In addition, Schatzber ‘596 states that “[d]ementia associated with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013