Appeal 2007-2834
Application 09/943,048
2. PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Hedden WO 01/14705 A1 Jun. 28, 2001
Langhoff (as translated) DE 198 55 426 A1 Jun. 8, 2000
Shapiro US 6,444,221 Sep. 3, 2002
Burch US 6,552,031 B1 Apr. 22, 2003
DRUG FACTS AND COMPARISON, 1995 EDITION, pp. 1248
Hendler US 6,541,613 B2 Apr. 1, 2003
3. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 10-13, 18-21, 23, AND 24
Claims 10-13, 18-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Hedden, Langhoff, and Shapiro (Answer 6-
7).
The Examiner cites Hedden as teaching “the use of [a] COX-2
inhibitor such as celecoxib and rofecoxib for the treatment of inflammatory
disorders including arthritis” (id. at 6). The Examiner cites Langhoff as
teaching “the use of low dose aspirin (in dosage range of 30mg-75mg) for
the treatment of anti-inflammatory disorder including rheumatism and
arthritis” (id.). The Examiner cites Shapiro as teaching “the use of
flavonoids, flavanoids and isoflavones (i.e., daidzin, genistein, quercetin,
silymarin, etc...) as antioxidants having functional equivalent property for
the treatment of inflammatory disease conditions including arthritis or
rhuematoidal arthritis” (id.).
Reasoning that Hedden, Langhoff, and Shapiro “make clear that
COX-2 inhibitor[s] such as rofecoxib and celecoxib, low-dose aspirin and
antioxidants (i.e., flavanoid, flavonoid and isoflavone) have been
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013