Appeal 2007-1615
Application 10/693,442
for an extended period of time, and to adjust the dosage to prevent the
appetite from rebounding for the duration of the treatment period.
We have carefully considered all of Appellant’s arguments, but are
not persuaded otherwise.
In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner equates appetite
suppression and weight control, but “one of skill in the art would recognize
that the two concepts are not coterminus” (Appeal Br. 12). Relying on the
Declaration of Albert M. Fleischner (dated December 21, 2005, hereinafter
“Decl. I”), Appellant argues that “[i]t is possible to cause weight loss
without suppressing appetite” and “it is possible to suppress appetite without
causing weight loss” (Appeal Br. 13), thus, “appetite suppression may have
no effect on body weight” (id. at 14). We do not disagree, but the distinction
is of no consequence in the present case because, as discussed above, the
references cited by the Examiner teach that the appetite suppressive effect of
Hoodia can indeed facilitate weight loss.
In a similar vein, Appellant argues that “[a]ppetite suppression . . .
may cause weight gain” (Appeal Br. 14). Appellant cites Blundell3 for the
proposition that food, “the most widely-used appetite suppressant in the
world can also cause weight gain” (id.). We are not persuaded. Again, the
references cited by the Examiner establish that Hoodia can suppress appetite
while reducing food intake, i.e., calorie intake, at the same time, and can
facilitate weight loss.
3 Blundell, “Pharmacological Approaches to Appetite Suppression,” 2
Trends in Pharmacol. Sci. 147157 (1991).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013