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 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013