Appeal 2007-1615
Application 10/693,442
losing weight when orally administered” (Answer 5), and contends that
“[t]he adjustment of particular conventional working conditions - e.g.,
determining appropriate, suitable time periods and intervals for orally
administering [ ] a Hoodia gordonii weight-loss product - is deemed merely
a matter of . . . routine optimization which is well within the purview of the
skilled artisan, especially given that the skilled dietary artisan would clearly
take into account the amount of weight an overweight/obese subject needs to
lose and administer such a weight-loss product accordingly - e.g., on a
commonly-employed once or more daily basis for an extended period of
time (as instantly claimed) so as to achieve a desired amount of weight
loss/reduction in the . . . subject” (id. at 5-6).
We agree with the Examiner. All of the references relied on by the
Examiner discuss the appetite suppressive effect of the Hoodia plant and its
extracts, and Tulp, Habeck, and Van Heerden, at the very least, teach that
Hoodia’s appetite suppressive effect facilitates weight loss in animals,
including humans (in the case of Habeck). In addition, Van Heerden
provides evidence that the appetite suppressive effect of Hoodia is
temporary, and the appetite rebounds shortly after administration is ended;
thus, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to continue
administration for an extended period of time. Habeck also provides
evidence that it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to
administer Hoodia for longer periods of time than those used in the clinical
trials, since “obesity is a chronic relapsing problem and you need a treatment
that is going to work safely and effectively over a long period of time”
(Habeck 281). Habeck additionally provides evidence that it would have
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013