Appeal 2007-2834
Application 09/943,048
within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one
reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion
of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly
suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (quoting In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA
1965)). Moreover, “[a]s is clear from cases such as [United States v. Adams,
383 U.S. 39 (1966)], a patent composed of several elements is not proved
obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1741 (2007).
In the instant case, Hedden discloses the use of celecoxib in
compositions which are “especially useful as anti-inflammatory agents, such
as in the treatment of arthritis” (Hedden 18). Hedden also lists rofecoxib as
among COX-2 inhibitors useful in the compositions (id. at 16). Hedden’s
compositions do not contain either the low-dose aspirin, or the flavanoid,
flavonoid, or isoflavone, recited in claim 18’s composition.
However, Langhoff discloses that a composition containing 70-82
weight percent of an ω-3-unsaturated fatty acid, 7.5-13 weight percent of
vitamin E, 10-15 weight percent of vitamin C, and 0.5-2 weight percent of
acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) is useful “in the treatment and prophylaxis of
rheumatic and arthritic disorders” (Langhoff 3). Langhoff discloses that “the
total quantity of acetylsalicylic acid . . . administered to the body is between
30 and 75 mg per day” (id.).
Langhoff discloses that “excellent” results were achieved in a patient
suffering from “a rheumatic and/or arthritic disorder” by daily administering
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013