Appeal 2007-1155
Application 10/230,575
for the deficiency in Schatzber ‘596. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection
of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Schatzber ‘596 and Sekijima.
OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING:
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of
Schatzberg ‘802. The claims in Schatzberg ‘802 are directed to a method of
treating mild cognitive impairment. In the Examiner’s opinion, since the
same active agent is administered the method of Schatzberg ‘802 and
Appellants’ claimed methods overlap. We disagree. As discussed above,
mild cognitive impairment and cognitive deterioration in Down’s syndrome
are distinct impairments. For the reasons set forth above, we find no
evidence on this record to suggest that a method of treating mild cognitive
impairment would be effective to inhibit cognitive deterioration in an adult
patient with Down’s syndrome but without dementia. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1-15 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of
Schatzberg ‘802.
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of
Schatzberg ‘046. The Examiner finds that Schatzberg ‘046 is “drawn to a
method of inhibiting progression toward dementia in a patient therein
administering the same glucocorticoid receptor antagonist as the instantly
claimed” (Answer 7-8). According to the Examiner, the patient population
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013