Ex Parte Leuwer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

11612623 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/612,623 12/19/2006 Martin Leuwer 065493-691552US00 6441
106303 7590 02/02/2018
Nixon Peabody LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
EXAMINER
PAGONAKIS, ANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
lapatentmb@nixonpeabody.com
ipairlink @ nixonpeabody. com
slevy @ nixonpeabody.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN LEUWER, GERTRUD HAESELER,
JEREMY LAMBERT, and DELIA BELELLI1
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
Technology Center 1600
Before ELIZABETH A. LaVIER, TAWEN CHANG, and RYAN H. FLAX,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FLAX, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving
claims directed to a method of treating and/or reducing chronic neuropathic
pain in a subject in need thereof. Claims 1—8, 18, 20, and 23—25 are on
appeal as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and § 103. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part and enter a new ground of rejection for claim 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
1 Appellants identify the Real Parties in Interest as “UNIVERSITY OF
LIVERPOOL,” “MEDIZINISCHE HOCHSCHULE HANNOVER,” and
“UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE.” App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification states:
It has been postulated that phenol derivatives may have a number
of neuromodulatory effects. However the only phenol derivative
in widespread clinical use is the anaesthetic propofol
(2,6-di-isopropylphenol).
Key features of anaesthesia are loss of consciousness, immobility
in the presence of painful stimuli and absence of recall.
Anaesthetics, such as propofol, are understood to mediate their
anesthetic effect by activating y-aminobutyric acid (GABAa)
receptors in the Central Nervous System (CNS).
In contrast, analgesia is defined as the absence of pain. Among
other peripheral and/or central nervous mechanisms, analgesia
can arise as a result of enhanced inhibitory synaptic transmission
within the dorsal horn of the spinal chord [sic]. It is understood
that inhibitory postsynaptic transmission in the spinal chord [sic]
involves mainly glycine receptors. Accordingly the glycine
receptor family represents a target site for therapeutic agents
aiming at inhibiting pain.
Spec. 1:22-2:10.
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, is representative, and is
reproduced below:
1. A method of treating and/or reducing chronic
neuropathic pain in a subject in need thereof, comprising:
providing a compound of general formula I:
2
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
OH
wherein R3 is a halogen, amine or amide, and Ri, R2, R4
and R5 are independently H or an alkyl comprising between 1
and 13 carbon atoms, or a salt thereof; and
administering a therapeutically effective amount of the
compound to the subject to produce an analgesic effect.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x).2
The following rejections are appealed:
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Non-Final
Action 3.3
Claims 1—8 and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Krusz4 and Williams.5 Id. at 5.
2 In response to a restriction/election of species requirement Appellants
elected the species “4 chloropropofol (i.e., 2,6-di-isopropyl-4-
chlorophenol) for prosecution on the merits.” Response dated June 2, 2008.
3 Office Action dated Oct. 29, 2014 (“Non-Final Action”), from which
appeal is taken.
4 WO 00/54588 (pub. Sept. 21, 2000) (“Krusz”).
5 David A. Williams and Thomas L. Lemke, Foye’s Principles of
Medicinal Chemistry 5th ed., 59-61 (2002) (“Williams”).
3
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
Claims 1—8 and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Falgas6 and Omoigui.7 Id. at 10.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Krusz and
Patani,8 and Jerussi,9 or, alternatively, over Falgas, Omoigui, and Jerussi.
Id. at 12—13.
Claims 1—8 and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Trapani,10 White,* 11 and Shadiack.12 Id. at 13.
DISCUSSION
Except where otherwise indicated herein, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings of fact, reasoning on scope and content of the claims and prior art,
and conclusions set out in the Final Action and Answer. See Final Action 5—
13; Answer 2—6, 8—11. Only those arguments made by Appellants in the
Appeal Brief and properly presented in the Reply Brief have been
considered in this Decision. Arguments not so presented in the Briefs are
6 EP 0 707 849 A1 (pub. Apr. 24, 1996) (“Falgas”).
7 US 2004/0038874 A1 (pub. Feb. 26, 2004) (“Omoigui”).
8 George A. Patani and Edmond J. LaVoie, Bioisosterism: A Rational
Approach in Drug Design, 96 Chem. Rev. 3147—76 (1996) (“Patani”).
9 US 2003/0018083 A1 (pub. Jan. 23, 2003) (“Jerussi”).
10 Giuseppe Trapani et al., Propofol Analogues. Synthesis, Relationships
between Structure and Affinity at GABAa Receptor in Rat Brain, and
Differential Electrophysiological Profile at Recombinant Human GABAa
Receptors, 41 J. Med. Chem. 1846—54 (1998) (“Trapani”).
11 H. Steve White et al., Topiramate enhances GABA-mediated chloride flux
and GABA-evoked chloride currents in murine brain neurons and increases
seizure threshold, 28 Epilepsy Res. 167—79 (1997) (“White”).
12 Annette M. Shadiack et al., The Novel Aniconvulsant Topiramate is
Antiallodynic in a Rat Model of Neuropathic Pain, 4 Analgesia 173—79
(1999) (“Shadiack”).
4
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015); see also Ex parte Borden,
2010 WL 191083 at *2 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Any bases for asserting
error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are
waived.”).
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. If
that burden is met, the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shifts to the applicant.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(emphasis added).
Written Description Requirement
The Examiner determined claim 20 is drawn to chronic back pain, but
that claim 1, from which it depends, recites treating chronic neuropathic
pain. Final Action 3. The Examiner determined that chronic back pain is
not described by the Specification as a type of chronic neuropathic pain and,
therefore, there is no written description supporting claim 20.
“In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure
as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the
claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230
F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, the disclosure must convey
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in
possession of the invention. See id. “A claim that recites a property that is
necessarily inherent in a formulation that is adequately described is not
invalid as lacking written description merely because the property itself is
not explicitly described.” Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 796 F.3d 1293, 1309
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
5
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
Although this rejection is not contested by Appellants and, therefore,
could be summarily affirmed, we note that the Specification describes an
experiment where, “[t]he Bennett model, which is known to the art, of
neuropathic pain (loose ligation of one sciatic nerve) is employed.” Spec.
40:25—26. It is well known that sciatic nerve pain is a chronic pain
experienced, inter alia, in the lower back. See, e.g., Mayo Clinic, Sciatica,
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/sciatica/symptoms-
causes/syc-20377435, Jan. 22, 2018 (“Pain that radiates from your lower
(lumbar) spine to your buttock and down the back of your leg is the hallmark
of sciatica.”). Therefore, chronic lower back pain is understood as a species
under or overlapping the genus of neuropathic pain (pain signals originating
in the nerves themselves), in at least some, common circumstances.
For the reasons above, we conclude that the Specification and claim
20 do not fail under the written description requirement.
Obviousness
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “[T]he analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at
418. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device [or process], and
a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices [or processes] in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417.
6
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
“In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious,
neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee
controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim
extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” Id. at 419.
“One way for a patent applicant to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness is to make a showing of ‘unexpected results,’ i.e., to show that
the claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage that a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have found surprising or
unexpected.” In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “To be
particularly probative, evidence of unexpected results must establish that
there is a difference between the results obtained and those of the closest
prior art, and that the difference would not have been expected by one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 752 F.3d 967, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
1. Claims 1—8 and 23—25 Rejected Over Krusz and Williams
The Examiner determined that the claims would have been obvious
over Krusz, which discloses treating chronic pain, including neuropathic
pain, using propofol, which has the following chemical structure:
Non-final Action 5 (citing Krusz 18:15—30, Abstract). The Examiner
identified that Krusz did not teach using the identical claimed and elected
compound 4-chloropropofol, which has the following chemical structure:
7
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
Id. at 6. The Examiner did not state that Krusz suggested modifying its
propofol compound to include the chlorine substitution at the 4th position of
the ring as shown above, but determined that Williams disclosed:
When a lead compound is first discovered for a particular disease
state, it often lacks the required potency and pharmacokinetic
properties suitable for making it a viable clinical candidate . . .
The medicinal chemist therefore must modify the compound to
reduce or eliminate these undesirable features without losing the
desired biological activity. Replacement or modification of
functional groups with other groups having similar properties is
known as isosteric or bioisosteric replacement.
Id. (citing Williams 59). Addressing the issue of reasonable expectation of
successfully adding chlorine to propofol, as shown above, the Examiner
cited Williams as evidencing that, generally, a halogen (e.g., Cl) can replace
hydrogen in bioisoteric replacement. Id. (citing Williams 60-61, Table 2.9).
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to consider the claims and
the prior art “as a whole,” specifically the claim element “to produce an
analgesic effect.” App. Br. 6. Appellants argue Krusz is “focused on
‘anesthetic’ properties of propofol that activate GABAa receptors,” rather
than the “activation of glycine receptors,” which Appellants contend equates
to the “claimed ‘analgesic’ use (i.e., pain killer).” Id.
8
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
This argument is not persuasive because Krusz expressly teaches the
use of propofol to treat “chronic intractable pain” and that such “propofol
treatment usually provided effective pain relief.” Krusz Abstract, 18:15—17.
As Appellants rightly equate an analgesic therapy to the use of a “pain
killer,” it is indisputable that Krusz teaches such a use for propofol (e.g.,
“[w]hen used at a sub-anesthetic dosage level that does not cause a loss of
consciousness”), regardless of the biochemical pathways of focus in the
reference. See Krusz Abstract; App. Br. 6. We note that Krusz specifically
states, “[sjince anesthetic drugs cause a loss of sensation by depressing neve
function, anesthetic drugs can cause analgesic activity (i.e., pain-reducing
activity).” Krusz 8:33—9:1.
Appellants also argue that the skilled artisan would not have explored
modifying propofol in the manner the Examiner determined would have
been obvious in view of Williams because the skilled artisan would
eventually find that a propofol derivative, for example, the elected
4-choloropropofol, would be selective for glycine receptors and not GABAa
receptors, unlike the case with propofol. App. Br. 4 (citing Leuwer
Declaration for this proposition).13
Appellants’ reasoning is not persuasive. Contrary to Appellants’
arguments here, and throughout their briefing, the claims do not require
treating pain by affecting glycine receptors rather than by affecting GABAa
receptors. See also App. Br. 11, 15, 16 (Appellants’ additional argument
regarding glycine receptors versus GABAa receptors). Such unclaimed
13 Declaration of Martin Leuwer Pursuant to CFR § 1.132, dated June 19,
2013 (“Leuwer Declaration”).
9
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
structures or method steps do not provide a patentable distinction over the
prior art. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[Appellant’s
arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.”). Neither the Specification nor any other evidence
of record establishes that neuropathic pain can only be relieved via glycine
receptors. In fact, Krusz evidences the contrary—that propofol, which acts
via GABAa receptors, can treat neuropathic pain. Williams (and also Patani
and Trapani, which are of record on appeal) supports that it was routine in
the field to produce derivatives of lead compositions, like propofol, in an
effort to improve the therapeutic performance thereof.14 This point is not
contested by Appellants. Hypothetically, once a derivative product was
produced, if it was found to have a different biological effect or to operate
via an unexpected biological pathway, while still producing an intended
pain-relieving result, such a discovery alone would not have reasonably
dissuaded a skilled artisan from making the product. In fact, although not
addressed by the Examiner, Krusz expressly teaches that its methods of
producing a therapeutic analgesic effect are not limited to using propofol,
14 Although the Examiner cites Williams as supporting the determination
that replacing a hydrogen with chlorine in propofol would have been
obvious, upon review of the reference we note that the cited Table 2.9 does
not indicate that chlorine can generally replace hydrogen. Regarding
hydrogen and chlorine, Williams Table 2.9 indicates that fluorine,
hydroxide, nitrogen monohydride, and methyl can replace hydrogen and that
chlorine, bromine, and (what appears to be) trifluoromethyl can replace one
another in bioisosteric replacement. Williams 61 (Table 2.9). Appellants do
not raise this issue, but, in any case and as noted elsewhere in this decision,
Krusz teaches analgesic effects of propofol derivatives, including the
4-chloropropofol derivative described in Trapani.
10
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
but that “various analogs and cogeners of propofol are known to have
anesthetic properties” and “[a] number of such analogs and cogeners are
listed and described in Trapani.” Krusz 13:28—14:29. We note that Trapani,
cited in Krusz and also by the Examiner in a separate obviousness rejection,
expressly discloses the claimed 4-chloropropofol derivative of propofol. See
Trapani 1847 (Chart 1).
Appellants also argue that the claimed invention, e.g.,
4-chloropropofol provided to a patient in need, was “unexpectedly
advantageous with superior properties over propofol.” i.e., the
compound of focus in the Krusz reference. As support, Appellants cite to
the Leuwer Declaration as evidence that the claimed propofol derivatives are
surprisingly highly specific for glycine receptors over central GABAa
receptors and contend that this allows for extreme potency and makes it
possible to treat pain without triggering unwanted anesthetic effects. App.
Br. 9-10 (citing Leuwer Declaration H 7—9; Spec. 10:1—4). Appellants also
contend, citing the Antkowiak Declaration as support, that it would have
been unexpected for a propofol derivative to produce an analgesic effect
rather than an anesthetic effect. App. Br. 10 (citing Antkowiak Declaration
19).15
Regarding Appellants’ unexpected results argument, considering the
Antkowiak Declaration, we are not convinced that the skilled artisan would
not have expected at least some analgesic effect using propofol or a propofol
15 Declaration of Dr. Bemd Antkowiak, dated Sept. 7, 2011 (“Antkowiak
Declaration”).
11
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
derivative because Krusz explicitly teaches that propofol in its original form
can produce such an effect at the right dosages, as discussed above.
However, Appellants have presented evidence that the propofol
derivatives of the invention, for example, 4-chlororpropofol, are much more
potent analgesics than propofol and can be used to produce an analgesic
effect without concerns over anesthetic effects because of their specificity in
activating glycine receptors compared to GABAa receptors, and that this
was unexpected. See, e.g., Leuwer Declaration || 7—10 (noting claimed
compounds’ exponentially increased selectivity for glycine receptors over
GABAa receptors was unexpected, where the later can cause sedation and
the former does not). Thus, while Krusz teaches that propofol and its
derivative compounds are useful analgesics, it does not identify the
unexpected, specific biological pathways by which propofol derivatives
achieve this result, which provide the advantage of potent pain relief without
the threat of unwanted sedation.
“Mere improvement in properties does not always suffice to show
unexpected results. In our view, however, when an applicant demonstrates
substantially improved results . . . and states that the results were
unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absence
of evidence to the contrary.” In re Soni, 54 F.3d at 751 (emphases in
original). Here, there is some evidence of the analgesic potency alleged
(see, e.g., Spec. 9:17—10:10 and examples) and no evidence to the contrary.
As such, we conclude Appellants’ argument is persuasive to overcome the
rejection over Krusz and Williams.
12
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
2. Claims 1—8 and 23—25 Rejected Over Falgas and Omoigui
The Examiner determined that Falgas discloses the pharmaceutical
compound 2,6,di-isopropyl-4-chlorophenol, as claimed, because it discloses
a base chemical formula, as follows:
OH
R
(I)
having a benzene ring with a hydroxyl group at its first position and,
optionally, isopropyl groups at its adjacent positions R2 and R6 on either side
of the hydroxyl group, and a chlorine at the opposite position R4 from the
hydroxyl group. Non-final Action 10 (citing Falgas 2:3—5, 7:11—13, 3:46—
48, 8 (Table 3), 15:11—17). The Examiner determined that Falgas disclosed
such compounds to be classified as 5-lipoxygenase (5-FO) inhibitors. Id.
The Examiner identified that Falgas did not teach using its
pharmaceutical compounds for treating neuropathic pain and, therefore,
cited Omoigui as teaching that 5-FO inhibitors (like the above-discussed
class of compounds of Falgas) can treat neuropathic pain. Id. at 10-11
(citing Omoigui claims 1, 36, and 53—55). The claims/disclosure of
Omoigui cited by the Examiner teach and suggest that “persistent pain
disorders” can be treated “by inhibiting the biochemical mediators of
inflammation” (claim 1), that one such “persistent pain disorder is
neuropathic pain” (claim 36), that a “biochemical mediator of inflammation
13
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
[to be inhibited] is 5-lipoxygenase” (claim 53), and that an “inhibitor [can
be] a 5-lipoxygenase antagonist” (claim 54). Id. at 11. The Examiner
determined that there would be motivation to use the 5-LO inhibitors of
Falgas for treating neuropathic pain as disclosed by Omoigui and that there
would have been a reasonable expectation of successfully doing so. Id.
Appellants argue that Omoigui does not teach the use of a 5-LO
inhibitor to treat neuropathic pain. App. Br. 12. Appellants contend that
Omoigui discloses using COX (cyclooxygnenase) inhibitors, not LOX
(another acronym for lipoxygenase inhibitor or LO) inhibitors for
neuropathic pain treatment. Id. at 12—13 (citing Omoigui 145). Appellants
argue that the Examiner has interpreted Omoigui too broadly as teaching 5-
LO inhibitors can treat neuropathic pain and, thus, has erred in rejecting the
claims. Id. at 13.
These arguments are not persuasive. Omoigui, even if not explicit, at
the very least suggests that a 5-LO inhibitor could be used as an
inflammation inhibitor to treat pain and, in particular, neuropathic pain.
Contrary to Appellants’ contentions, Omoigui, even at paragraph 45 cited by
Appellants, does not restrict its disclosure or invention to COX inhibitors to
the exclusion of LOX inhibitors for mitigating inflammation. In a following
paragraph, Omoigui states that leukotrienes, the inflammatory mediators
resulting from the LOX pathway, “are also important in inflammation and
hypersensitivity reactions” and Omoigui’s claims are clear that using a 5-
lipoxygenase inhibitor as a biochemical mediator for treating persistent pain,
e.g., neuropathic pain, is within the bounds of its invention. Omoigui 147,
claims 1, 36, 53, 54.
14
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
Appellants argue generally that the claimed invention is contrary to
conventional wisdom and thus nonobvious over all the cited art, specifically
due to the “unexpectedly advantageous and superior properties [of] propofol
derivatives over the properties of the parent propofol compound, allowing
for new uses such as analgesic treatment of chronic pain.” App. Br. 16—17.
While, supra, we credited Appellants’ evidence of unexpected results over
propofol in reversing the rejection over Krusz and Williams, we cannot do
the same in analyzing this rejection because Falgas, unlike Krusz, discloses
propofol derivatives within the scope of claim 1. Therefore, comparisons
between propofol and its derivatives are not persuasive evidence of
unexpected results because Falgas teaches such derivatives as
pharmaceuticals. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (“Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not
render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.”).16
For the above reasons we affirm this rejection.
3. Claim 18 Rejected Over Krusz and Patani, and Jerussi or,
Alternatively, Falgas, Omoigui, and Jerussi
Claim 18 depends directly from claim 1, discussed above as non­
obvious over Krusz and Williams and as obvious over Falgas and Omoigui.
Further to the two preceding rejections and the related findings of fact
supporting them, the Examiner determined that the claim 18 limitation
“administration via a slow or delayed release device,” is taught by Jerussi,
which was combined with the other references. Final Action 12—13.
Reviewing Jerussi, we find that it discloses that slow or controlled release
16 Likewise, this general argument also is not persuasive as to the rejection
of claim 18 based on Falgas, Omoigui, and Jerussi.
15
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
formulations were well known in the pharmaceutical arts. See Jerussi 71—
73.
Over the Krusz-Patani-Jerussi combination, Appellants largely
reiterate their arguments presented over the Krusz-Williams combination,
but add that Jerussi fails to describe propofol derivatives and cannot address
the contended failures of the Krusz and/or Patani references in disclosing the
claimed invention.17 App. Br. 11. Appellants expressly renew their
argument that the invention provides unexpected results compared to Krusz,
which discloses using propofol as an analgesic. Id. As with the rejection
over Krusz and Williams, we are persuaded that Appellants’ evidence
regarding unexpected results overcomes this rejection as neither Patani nor
Jerussi are indicated by the Examiner to rebut such evidence.
Over the Falgas-Omoigui-Jerussi combination, Appellants largely
reiterate their arguments presented over the Falgas-Omoigui combination,
but add that Jerussi fails to describe propofol derivatives and cannot address
the contended failures of the Falgas and Omoigui references in disclosing
the claimed invention. App. Br. 14. We remain unpersuaded by Appellants’
arguments and conclude that Appellants have not established the Examiner
erred in determining claim 18 would have been obvious over the Falgas-
Omoigui-Jerussi combination.
For the reasons above, we affirm this rejection.
17 In this alternative combination the Examiner appears to have replaced the
Williams reference with Patani without any explanation; however,
Appellants do not take issue with this and, upon reviewing Patani, we find
that its relevant disclosure is essentially the same as that of Williams. See
Patani 3147.
16
Appeal 2016-008130
Application 11/612,623
4. Claims 1—8 and 23—25 Rejected Over Trapani, White, and
Shadiack
The Examiner determined that the claims would have been obvious
over the cited prior art combination in that Trapani discloses the elected
species of chemical compound, 4-chloropropofol, which it does at, inter
alia, Chart 1, reproduced below:
Chart 1
145 56-24 25 - 26
1 X = H 16 R = CHj
2 X s Cl 17 R = COCHj
3 X «Jk 18 R»COC«H$
4 X»I 1$ R = COCHh«r
5 X*N<:>2 28 R a €OCHjNIlCH2€H(OCli j)2
6 X « SOjCHj 21 RaCOCHjN(CjHs)2
7 X-CHO 22 8 sCOCHjN(e3H7h
8 X •-= COCftHj 2.2 R * COCHjN*(CHz)4-
9 XaCKjNICHjth
10 X ~ NiCHiSj
11 X = NHi
12 X »> MK'OCHj
13 X ~ MKXKTj
14 X = NHSOjCHj
15X = *N