Appeal 2007-2254
Application 10/383,115
(id.). The Examiner also argues that the “determination of a preferred
tetracycline, as well as optimal dosages, . . . are parameters well within the
purview of those skilled in the art through no more than routine
experimentation in view of the established utility of tetracyclines and the
guidance provided by Amin” (id. at 5).
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Amin describes “a method for inhibiting nitric oxide
production or nitric oxide synthase expression or activity in a biological
system by providing a tetracycline compound to the system in an amount
which is effective to achieve the specified result” (Amin, col. 4, ll. 37-41).
“Highly preferred tetracycline compounds include . . . doxycycline, or
minocycline” (id. at col. 4, ll. 45-50). Amin also discloses that “NO [nitric
oxide] appears to be involved in various medical conditions, including . . .
neurodeg[e]nerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease” and that the
“invention can be used to treat any of these diseases” (id. at col. 7, ll. 21-35).
In addition, Amin describes administering the tetracycline compounds
in “the highest dosage which does not cause undesirable or intolerable side
effects,” such as “in an amount of from about 0.1 mg/kg/day to about
30 mg/kg/day, and preferably from about 1 mg/kg/day to about
18 mg/kg/day” (id. at col. 8, ll. 59-64). Amin does not specifically describe
administering the tetracycline compounds “in an amount effective to inhibit
or reduce amyloid plaque formation,” as recited in claim 1. However, the
amounts described in Amin overlap with the amounts described in the
Specification at page 5 and in claims 14 and 15, which directly or indirectly
depend from claim 1. Overlapping ranges support a prima facie case of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013