Appeal 2007-1155
Application 10/230,575
that “it would be obvious to use a known compound for the treatment of
dementia (and cognitive decline), specifically for use with Alzheimer’s
disease, in patients with Down’s syndrome as there is a known increase in
cognitive impairment and specifically of Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis
in Down’s syndrome patients” (Answer 9). To the contrary, the evidence of
record points the other way. Specifically, Krishnan declares that
[i]t is particularly true that therapeutic regiments suitable for
normal patients are not predictably effective or necessarily
recommended for patients with genetic abnormalities, such as a
patient with Down’s syndrome. This is because patients with
genetic defects (e.g., Down’s syndrome) differ from genetically
normal patients in multiple physiological/biochemical
parameters, which can be immediately relevant to the
effectiveness and possible side effects of any given treatment
modality.
(Krishnan Declaration 5: ¶ 11.)
We remind the Examiner that a claim “composed of several elements
is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one
to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the
combination of two known devices according to their established functions,
it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person
of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
On reflection, we find that Schatzber ‘596 fails to teach or suggest a
method of inhibiting cognitive deterioration in an adult patient with Down’s
syndrome, but without dementia. In our opinion, Sekijima fails to make up
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013