11498620 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 2011)

Ex Parte Brooks et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 11, 2011

11498620 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 2011)

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. 11/498,620 08/03/2006 Peter C. Brooks TSRI 419.3 Div.1 1100 2387 7590 08/11/2011 Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. 20 NORTH WACKER DRIVE 36TH FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1628 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/11/2011 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte PETER C. BROOKS and DAVID A. CHERESH __________ Appeal 2010-004707 Application 11/498,620 Technology Center 1600 __________ Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants have requested rehearing of the Decision entered May 10, 2011. This Decision affirmed the rejection of claims 21 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We deny the request for rehearing. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Goodman, as evidenced by Folkman, in view of McKearn (Ans. 3). In affirming the rejection, we found that the Examiner set forth a Appeal 2010-004707 Application 11/498,620 2 prima facie case that it would have been obvious to use Goodman‟s compounds in conjunction with chemotherapy, as described in McKearn, in order to combat tumors and that Appellants did not rebut the prima facie case (Decision 4-5). Appellants argue that a “rationale that supports the conclusion of obviousness is lacking in this case” (Req. Reh‟g 2). ISSUE Have Appellants shown that we misapprehended or overlooked any point in rendering the Decision? ANALYSIS The Examiner did not argue that the rejection is an “application of the „obvious to try‟ standard” (Ans. 7). Instead, the Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the references so as to administer a compound which acts to inhibit an integrin, e.g., integrin antagonist, as taught by [Goodman,] in combination with a chemotherapeutic agent . . . because those of skill in the art recognize, in view of the teachings of McKearn et al, that integrin antagonists and chemotherapeutic agents were well- known pharmaceutical combinations for the treatment of neoplastic disorders such as cancer. (Id. at 4.) Appellants have not shown why this conclusion is in error. Appeal 2010-004707 Application 11/498,620 3 CONCLUSION Appellants have not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked any point in rendering the Decision. We therefore deny the request for rehearing. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). REHEARING DENIED cdc