Appeal 2007-4148
Application 09/148,012
The prior art teaches methods of inhibiting pregnancy comprising
administering estrogen. See, e.g., Spona et al., “Inhibition of ovulation by
an oral contraceptive containing 100 µg levonorgestrel in combination with
20 µg ethinylestradiol,” Contraception, Vol. 54, pp. 299-304 (1996) (of
record).
Some of the claims were rejected earlier in prosecution as anticipated
by Spona and other references. Those rejections were overcome by
amendments to the claims, but the amendments that overcame the rejections
have since been modified. Claim 1, as it currently stands, appears to read on
the method disclosed by Spona. Other claims may also read on Spona, or
other prior art.
If this application is subject to further prosecution, the Examiner
should consider whether the claims as they currently stand are anticipated
by, or would have been obvious in view of, methods taught in the prior art.
B. Claims 4-7
Claim 1, on which all the other claims depend, is directed to a
“method . . . comprising administering a compound inhibiting uptake,
binding or transport of cholesteryl ester by SR-BI.” Claim 4 is directed to
the same method “wherein the compound decreases SR-BI expression,”
while claim 5 is directed to the same method “wherein the compound
increases SR-BI expression.” Similarly, claim 6 is directed to the same
method “wherein the compound decreases SR-BI binding to lipoprotein,”
while claim 7 is directed to the same method “wherein the compound
increases SR-BI binding to lipoprotein.”
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013