Appeal 2007-1615
Application 10/693,442
Obviousness
I. Claims 1, 2, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tulp, Barnett, Habeck, Kahn, or Van Heerden.
Tulp teaches that “[c]onsumption of the [South] African Hoodia plant
has been used for many years to control appetite in humans” (Tulp,
Abstract). “To determine the effects of Hoodia sp. on food intake [ ] and
body weight [ ], groups of young adult male lean and obese LA/Ntul//-cp
rats were administered a dehydrated crude homogenized preparation
obtained from . . . Hoodia [sp.] or fed normally (controls)” (id.).
“Spontaneous [food intake] decreased by < 50% within 2h of administration
of crude plant mixture or extract” and “[a]d libitum administration (< 3 w.)
resulted in sustained decrease in voluntary [food intake] in lean and obese
rats and with marked reduction in [body weight] (< 100 g/rat) in obese and
moderate reduction (< 50 g/rat) in lean rats, while control rats fed normally
gained [body weight] normally” (id.). Tulp concluded that “these results
indicate that Hoodia sp. may have strong potential for clinical appetite
regulation and weight control” (id.).
Both Kahn and Barnett report that P57, the appetite-suppressing
ingredient in the Hoodia cactus, has been isolated and patented.
Habeck teaches that extracts from the Hoodia plant have been shown
to be “highly effective in reducing weight” (Habeck 280), and that P57, the
active ingredient in Hoodia, “produced a significant weight loss and had a
good safety profile in a variety of preclinical studies using rats, mice and
dogs” (id.). The results of a “proof-of-principle” study in humans were
consistent with the results observed in animals. “60 patients took part in [a]
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013