Ex Parte Ressler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 9, 2018

14197399 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/197,399 03/05/2014
81100 7590 10/11/2018
Patent Manager
Emory University - Office of Tech Transfer
1599 Clifton Road NE, 4th Floor
1599-001-IAZ
Atlanta, GA 30322
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kerry J. Ressler
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12074 us 2937
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, JOHN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/11/2018 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):
krebel@emory.edu
ottip@emory.edu
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KERRY J. RESSLER and PAUL J. MARV AR
Appeal2017-008979 1
Application 14/197 ,399
Technology Center 1600
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and
CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge
FRANCISCO C. PRATS.
Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge
ERIC B. GRIMES.
PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involves a single claim that
recites a method of treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The
Examiner rejected the claims as anticipated.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We affirm.
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Emory University. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The sole rejection before us for review is the Examiner's rejection of
claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Barlow. 2 Final Act. 3. 3
Claim 8 reads as follows:
8. A method of treating posttraumatic stress disorder
comprising administering a pharmaceutical composition
comprising an effective amount of losartan to a subject
diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief 2 ( entered
December 29, 2016) (Claims App'x).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner's Position
In rejecting claim 8 as anticipated by Barlow, the Examiner found that
Barlow "teaches a method of treating a nervous system disorder related to a
psychiatric condition including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
(paragraphs [0136] and [0138]). Barlow teaches a method comprising
administering one or more modulators of angiotensin activity (paragraph
[001 OJ)." Final Act. 3.
The Examiner found that Barlow "teaches that the modulator is an
angiotensin receptor antagonist (e.g., angiotensin receptor blockers, ARBs,
ATI-receptor antagonists or sartans) (paragraph [0010])" and that
"angiotensin receptor antagonists include losartan (paragraph [0012])." Id.
2 US 2008/0167291 Al (published July 10, 2008).
3 In the Final Action, the Examiner's anticipation rejection over Barlow also
included claims 11 and 12. Final Act. 3. Appellants have canceled claims
11 and 12, however. See Response to Notification of Non-Compliant
Appeal Brief 3 ( entered December 29, 2016).
2
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
In response to Appellants' arguments that Barlow did not provide
sufficient enabling guidance for using losartan to treat PTSD, the Examiner
cited claim 43 of Barlow as being "specifically directed to a method of
treating post-traumatic stress disorder comprising administering a modulator
of angiotensin activity to produce an improvement in the post-traumatic
stress disorder in a subject of patient (as depending from claims 3 and 1)."
Ans. 2.
As to the use of losartan to treat PTSD, the Examiner found that claim
10 of Barlow "recites that the antagonist of the angiotensin receptor is
losartan. [Barlow] discloses that angiotensin receptor antagonists include
losartan (paragraph [0012])." Id.
Based on the disclosures in Barlow's claims, the Examiner found that
a skilled artisan would have "at once envisaged" treating PTSD with
losartan, as recited in Appellants' claim 8, even though the claims of
Barlow, in addition to losartan, disclosed other angiotensin receptor
antagonists. Id. at 2-3 ( citing Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (BP AI 1990); In
re Petering, 301 F.2d 676 (CCPA 1962); also citing MPEP §§ 213I.02(II)
and 213I.02(III)).
Analysis
As stated in In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden ... of presenting a
primafacie case ofunpatentability ....
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.
As to the issue of anticipation involved in this appeal, our reviewing
court has advised as follows:
3
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
A prior art reference can only anticipate a claim if it discloses
all the claimed limitations "arranged or combined in the same
way as in the claim." Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams
USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Net
MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2008) ). However, a reference can anticipate a claim even if it
"d[ oes] not expressly spell out" all the limitations arranged or
combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading
the reference, would "at once envisage" the claimed
arrangement or combination. In re Petering,[]301 F.2d [at]
681 [].
Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed.
Cir. 2015); accord Blue Calypso, LLCv. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331,
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
For example, similar to the situation presently before us, in each of
Wrigley and Kennametal, the court affirmed a finding of anticipation where
the claim at issue recited a combination of two essential features. See
Wrigley, 683 F.3d at 1361---62; Kennametal, 783 F.3d at 1382-83.
In each of Wrigley and Kennametal, the anticipating prior art
reference expressly disclosed both of the claimed features, but those features
were among multiple possible alternative elements described as being
suitable for combination to achieve the reference's ultimate objective. See
Wrigley, 683 F.3d at 1361; Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1382-83.
Citing Wrigley, the court in Kennametal explained the analysis to be
applied in such a situation:
Because all the limitations of Kennametal' s [ allegedly
anticipated] claim are specifically disclosed in Grab [the
allegedly anticipating reference], the question for the purposes
of anticipation is "whether the number of categories and
components" disclosed in Grab is so large that the combination
of ruthenium and PVD coatings [ recited in the claim at issue]
"would not be immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in
4
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
the art." Wrigley, 683 F.3d at 1361.
Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1382
Having carefully considered the arguments and evidence advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner, Appellants do not persuade us that the
preponderance of the evidence fails to support the Examiner's finding that
Barlow anticipates Appellants' claim 8. In particular, Appellants do not
persuade us that the number of categories and components disclosed in
Barlow is so large that the combination of treating PTSD with losartan,
recited in Appellants' claim 8, would not have been immediately apparent to
a skilled artisan.
Barlow discloses "methods for treating diseases and conditions of the
central and peripheral nervous system by stimulating or increasing
neurogenesis via modulation of angiotensin activity." Barlow ,r 2.
Barlow discloses that angiotensin modulators useful in its methods
comprise several categories of drugs, including angiotensin receptor
antagonists. Id. ,r 10. Barlow lists losartan, recited in Appellants' claim 8,
among about six other angiotensin receptor antagonists, as being useful in its
treatment methods. Id. ,r 12.
Barlow discloses that disorders of the nervous system that are
treatable using angiotensin modulators include psychiatric conditions. Id.
,r 136. Barlow discloses that PTSD is one of the psychiatric conditions
treatable according to its methods, among a longer list of about twenty
specific conditions and general disorders similarly treatable. Id. ,r 138.
Barlow's examples describe the neurogenic effects of different
angiotensin modulators, including losartan, on nerve cells in culture. See id.
,r,r 395--436 (Examples 1-18); see also id. ,r 403--404 (Example 5; "Effect of
5
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
Losartan on Neuronal Differentiation of Human Neural Stem Cells").
We acknowledge, as Appellants contend (see Appeal Brief 7-10), that
Barlow does not disclose a working example of using losartan to treat PTSD,
nor does Barlow otherwise disclose a single embodiment that expressly links
losartan to PTSD treatment.
Similar to the situation in Kennametal, however, the claims of Barlow
cited by the Examiner (see Ans. 2--4) provide disclosures that narrowly limit
the categories of disorder treatable according to Barlow's methods, and the
number of drug components useful in those methods.
In Kennametal, the court affirmed this Board's finding of anticipation
of a claim reciting a ruthenium binder combined with a physical vapor
deposition (PVD) coating, based on a prior art patent's disclosure in a
dependent claim of ruthenium as one of five metal binder components, in
association with a coating, and further given the disclosure in the prior art
patent's specification of PVD as one of only three coating methods. 780
F.3d at 1382-83.
Turning to the prior art before us, claim 1 of Barlow generically
recites a "method of treating a nervous system disorder related to cellular
degeneration, a psychiatric condition, cellular trauma and/or injury, or
another neurologically related condition" by "administering a modulator of
angiotensin activity to produce an improvement in said disorder in said
subject or patient." Barlow, p. 49 (claim 1).
Claim 3 of Barlow depends from claim 1, and limits the nervous
system disorder of claim 1 to a psychiatric disorder, which may be one of
about twenty-six enumerated conditions, among them PTSD. Id. ( claim 3).
Claim 43 of Barlow recites "[t]he method of claim 3, wherein said
6
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
nervous system disorder related to a psychiatric condition is post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD)." Id. at p. 50 (claim 43). As is evident, Barlow's
claim 43 expressly discloses treating PTSD and no other disorder.
Thus, viewed in context, claim 43 of Barlow expressly describes
treating PTSD, the disorder recited in Appellants' claim 8, with a modulator
of angiotensin activity, without any need for picking and choosing from
among multiple categories of other treatable disorders disclosed in the
reference. In this respect, the facts before us present a stronger case of
anticipation than in Kennametal, where the claim element at issue was
described in the prior art dependent claim in a list of five alternatives. See
780 F.3d at 1382.
As is evident, Barlow's claim 43 does not expressly state that losartan
is the angiotensin activity modulator used to treat PTSD. Barlow's claim 10,
however, which like claim 43 depends ultimately from Barlow's claim 1,
limits the compounds described as being useful for treating nervous system
disorders to five compounds, among them losartan: "The method of claim 9,
wherein said angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor is alacepril, captopril,
enalapril, or lisinopril; and said antagonist of the angiotensin receptor is
losartan." Id. at p. 49 (claim 10).
We acknowledge that Barlow's claim 10 depends from claim 1
through claims 9 and 7, which include losartan in a larger list of as many as
twenty-one potential drugs to be used to treat nervous system disorders. See
id. (claims 9 and 7). We also acknowledge that Barlow's claim 10 depends
from claim 1 through claim 3, which associates losartan with a list of at least
twenty-five nervous system disorders, in addition to PTSD. See id. ( claim
3).
7
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
Nonetheless, similar to the situation in Kennametal, because Barlow's
claim 43 expressly discloses treating PTSD with a modulator of angiotensin
activity, and because Barlow's claim 10 discloses losartan as one of five
modulators of angiotensin activity useful for treating nervous system
disorders, including PTSD, we are not persuaded that the number of
categories and components disclosed in Barlow is so large that the
combination of treating PTSD with losartan, recited in Appellants' claim 8,
would not have been immediately apparent to a skilled artisan.
To the contrary, given the express disclosure in Barlow's claim 43 of
treating PTSD with a modulator of angiotensin activity, and given the
disclosure in Barlow's claim 10 of losartan as one of five angiotensin
activity modulators useful for treating nervous system disorders, including
PTSD, we agree with the Examiner that an ordinary artisan would have at
once envisaged using losartan to treat PTSD, as recited in Appellants' claim
8. Accordingly, we also agree with the Examiner that Barlow anticipates the
process recited in Appellants' claim 8.
We acknowledge, but are unpersuaded by, Appellants' contentions
that, because Barlow does not provide a clinical working example of treating
PTSD with losartan, Barlow fails to provide an enabling disclosure of
treating PTSD with losartan. Appeal Br. 7-10. In particular, we
acknowledge Appellants' contentions that Barlow fails to provide a clinical
working example of treating PTSD with losartan, whereas Appellants'
Specification provides such clinical working examples. Id. at 9-11; see also
Reply Br. 5.
As the court explained in Kennametal, however, "actual performance
of combining the [ two claimed elements] ... is not required. . . . Rather,
8
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
anticipation only requires that those suggestions be enabled to one of skill in
the art." 780 F.3d at 1383 (citations and internal quotations omitted).
In the present case, as discussed above, Barlow's claim 43 discloses
treating PTSD with a modulator of angiotensin activity, and Barlow's claim
10 discloses losartan as one of five angiotensin activity modulators useful
for treating nervous system disorders, including PTSD. Appellants do not
identify any persuasive evidence suggesting that a skilled artisan, armed
with those disclosures, would have had to undertake an undue amount of
experimentation to determine whether losartan was useful for treating PTSD,
and what the suitable parameters of that treatment would be.
Appellants also do not persuade us that the decision in Impax Labs.,
Inc. v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 545 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008) mandates a
finding of non-anticipation (see Appeal Br. 8-9). In Impax, the drug recited
in the treatment claim at issue, riluzole, was one of hundreds of thousands of
compounds disclosed in the prior art reference, and the prior art reference
"specifically exclude[d] riluzole from the [prior art] invention." 545 F.3d at
1315. In contrast, as discussed above, Barlow's claim 43 discloses treating
PTSD with a modulator of angiotensin activity, and Barlow's claim 10
discloses losartan as one of five angiotensin activity modulators useful for
treating nervous system disorders, including PTSD.
Appellants also do not persuade us that the claims of Barlow are
"merely an attempt to combine a large number of compounds with a large
number of treatments without specific connectivity." Reply Br. 4.
Appellants reproduce claims 1-10 of Barlow in support of that contention.
Id. at 3--4.
9
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
Appellants, however, fail to address the disclosure of Barlow's claim
43, which the Examiner expressly identified (see Ans. 2), and which
expressly discloses treating PTSD, and no other disorder, as discussed
above. Thus, contrary to Appellants' contention that Barlow's claims
disclose a "very broad genus of indications" that requires "[ r ]etrospective
picking and choosing the neuropsychiatric disorder of PTSD" (Reply Br. 4),
claim 43 of Barlow, viewed in context, expressly describes treating PTSD
with a modulator of angiotensin activity, without any need for picking and
choosing from among multiple categories of other treatable disorders. And,
as also discussed above, Barlow's claim 10 discloses losartan as one of only
five modulators of angiotensin activity useful for treating nervous system
disorders, including PTSD.
Moreover, as noted above, contrary to Appellants' contention that a
requirement for selecting from among multiple alternatives in a prior art
reference mandates a finding of non-anticipation (see id. at 4--5), "a
reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out all the
limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the
art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement
or combination." Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1381 (citing In re Petering, 301
F .2d at 681) (internal brackets and quotations omitted).
In particular, we note that, despite the dissent's picking and choosing
argument characterizing the prior art at issue as describing multiple
alternative ingredients "which can be combined in over a million possible
combinations," Wrigley, 683 F.3d at 1371 (Newman, J., dissenting), the
court in Wrigley not only affirmed the district court's finding of anticipation,
it also denied both rehearing and rehearing en bane. Id. at 1356.
10
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
As noted above, Kennametal explains that, when a prior art reference
discloses multiple combinable elements, "the question for the purposes of
anticipation is whether the number of categories and components disclosed .
. . is so large that the combination ... [ recited in the claim at issue] would
not be immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art."
Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1382 (citing Wrigley, 683 F.3d at 1361) (internal
quotations omitted).
As discussed above, because Barlow's claim 43 expressly discloses
treating PTSD with a modulator of angiotensin activity, and because
Barlow's claim 10 discloses losartan as one of five modulators of
angiotensin activity useful for treating nervous system disorders, including
PTSD, we are not persuaded that the number of categories and components
disclosed in Barlow is so large that the combination of treating PTSD with
losartan, recited in Appellants' claim 8, would not have been immediately
apparent to a skilled artisan.
To the contrary, given the express disclosure in Barlow's claim 43 of
treating PTSD with a modulator of angiotensin activity, and given the
disclosure in Barlow's claim 10 of losartan as one of five angiotensin
activity modulators useful for treating nervous system disorders, including
PTSD, we agree with the Examiner that an ordinary artisan would have at
once envisaged using losartan to treat PTSD, as recited in Appellants' claim
8. Because we, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Barlow anticipates
the process recited in Appellants' claim 8, we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claim 8 over Barlow.
11
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
SUMMARY
For the reasons discussed, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim
8 as anticipated by Barlow.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KERRY J. RESSLER and PAUL J. MARV AR
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
Technology Center 1600
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and
CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, Barlow's disclosure does not
anticipate the claimed method.
Claim 8 requires administering losartan to a subject who has been
diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Barlow generically
discloses "methods for treating diseases and conditions of the central and
peripheral nervous system by stimulating or increasing neurogenesis via
modulation of angiotensin activity." Barlow ,r 2.
Barlow also describes "methods of treating a disease, disorder, or
condition by administering one or more modulators of angiotensin activity
as described herein. In some embodiments, a modulator is an aldosterone
receptor inhibitor, ACE inhibitor, or rennin inhibitor. In other embodiments,
the modulator is an angiotensin receptor antagonist ( also known as
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
angiotensin receptor blockers or ARBs ... "). Id. ,r 10. Barlow states that
"[ n ]on-limiting embodiments of angiotensin receptor antagonists include
candesartan (Atacand® or Ratacand®); eprosartan (Teveten®); irbesartan
(Aprovel® or Karvea® or Avapro®); losartan (Cozaar® or Hyzaar®);
olmesartan (Benicar®); telmisartan (Micardis® or Pritor®); and valsartan
(Diovan®)." Id. ,r 11.
Barlow claims a "method of treating a nervous system disorder related
to cellular degeneration, a psychiatric condition, cellular trauma and/or
injury, or another neurologically related condition in a subject or patient,
said method comprising administering a modulator of angiotensin activity to
produce an improvement in said disorder in said subject or patient." Barlow,
claim 1. Dependent claim 3 lists specific disorders:
a neuropsychiatric disorder, an affective disorder, depression,
hypomania, panic attack, anxiety, excessive elation, bipolar
depression, bipolar disorder (manic-depression), seasonal mood
( or affective) disorder, schizophrenia and other psychosis,
lissencephaly syndrome, anxiety syndrome, anxiety disorder,
phobia, stress and related syndrome, cognitive function
disorder, aggression, drug and alcohol abuse, obsessive
compulsive behavior syndrome, borderline personality disorder,
non-senile dementia, post-pain depression, postpartum
depression, cerebral palsy, post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), or a combination thereof.
Id., claim 3.
Barlow's claims 7, 9, and 10 read as follows:
7. The method of any one of claims 1-6, wherein said
modulator of angiotensin activity is a renin inhibitor, an
angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, or an antagonist of an
angiotensin receptor, or a combination thereof.
9. The method of claim 7, wherein said renin inhibitor is
aliskerin; said angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor is
14
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
alacepril, benazepril, captopril, enalapril, enalaprilat, fosinopril,
imidapril, lisinopril, moexipril, perindopril, quinapril, ramipril,
or trandolapril; said antagonist of the angiotensin receptor is
candesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan,
telmisartan, or valsartan.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein said angiotensin converting
enzyme inhibitor is alacepril, captopril, enalapril, or lisinopril;
and said antagonist of the angiotensin receptor is losartan.
Id., claims 7, 9, and 10.
Barlow's claim 43 reads: "The method of claim 3, wherein said
nervous system disorder related to a psychiatric condition is post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD)." Id., claim 43.
Thus, Barlow's disclosure that comes closest to the claimed method is
treating a subject having PTSD with "a modulator of angiotensin activity to
produce an improvement in said disorder in said subject." Id., claims 1, 3,
and 43. Or possibly using losartan, or any of four other drugs, to treat any
one of the conditions recited in Barlow's claims 1-6, which include the
variety of conditions recited in claim 3, above, as well as
a neurological trauma and/or injury, surgery related trauma
and/or injury, retinal injury and trauma, injury related to
epilepsy, spinal cord injury, brain injury, brain surgery, trauma
related brain injury, trauma related to spinal cord injury, brain
injury related to cancer treatment, spinal cord injury related to
cancer treatment, brain injury related to infection, brain injury
related to inflammation, spinal cord injury related to infection,
spinal cord injury related to inflammation, brain injury related
to environmental toxin, spinal cord injury related to
environmental toxin
(id., claim 4), or
a learning disorder, memory disorder, autism, attention deficit
disorder, narcolepsy, sleep disorder, cognitive disorder,
epilepsy, temporal lobe epilepsy, or a combination thereof.
15
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
(id. claim 5).
So, Barlow's claim 10 discloses a method of using losartan or any one
of four angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors to treat any of the
conditions recited in Barlow's claims 1-6, the breadth of which are spelled
out above. Barlow's claim 43 reads on a method of treating PTSD using any
modulator of angiotensin activity.
Neither disclosure meets the standard for anticipation, which "requires
that all of the claim elements and their limitations are shown in a single prior
art reference." In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
"[U]nless a prior art reference discloses within the four comers of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the
limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it
cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot
anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Here, Barlow at best suggests losartan as one possibility for treating
any of a variety of disorders, but does not specifically disclose treating
PTSD by administering losartan. Barlow therefore does not disclose the
claimed method with the specificity required by§ 102. See Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art
reference for it to anticipate the claim."). See also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d
586, 587 (CCPA 1972) ("[F]or the instant rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
to have been proper, the ... reference must clearly and unequivocally
disclose the claimed compound or direct those skilled in the art to the
compound without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various
16
Appeal2017-008979
Application 14/197 ,399
disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited
reference." ( emphasis in original)).
The majority determines that, based on Barlow's disclosure, "an
ordinary artisan would have at once envisaged using losartan to treat PTSD."
Supra at 8. In my view, however, the disclosure of treating any of a variety
of disorders with any of five compounds, or of treating PTSD using any
modulator of angiotensin activity, does not amount to a disclosure that
would lead a skilled artisan to immediately envisage treating PTSD with
losartan. I would reverse the rejection.
17