In In re Efthymiopoulos, [2016-1003] (October 18, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision that the claimed invention relating to the administration or an anti-influeza drug “by inhalation through\u00a0the mouth alone” was obvious.<\/p>\n
There is no dispute that Von Itzstein\u00a0I discloses the use of zanamivir to treat and prevent\u00a0influenza. There is also no dispute that Von Itzstein II\u00a0discloses several pages of different administration methods\u00a0for an adjacent homologue of zanamivir to achieve the\u00a0same result\u2014treating or preventing influenza,\u00a0expressly discloses administration
\nthrough \u201coral,\u201d \u201cnasal,\u201d or other forms \u201csuitable for administration
\nby inhalation,\u201d among other methodologies.<\/p>\n
Efthymiopoulos\u2019s argument that a skilled artisan\u00a0would not reasonably expect zanamivir to be effective if\u00a0administered through oral inhalation is also unpersuasive. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supports the determination that a\u00a0skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of\u00a0success in combining the Von Itzstein references. \u00a0\u00a0Efthymiopoulos further argued that the Board disregarded\u00a0its evidence of unexpected results, namely the\u00a0testimony of Dr. Hayden. However the Federal Circuit found that the record showed that the Board thoroughly considered and discussed
\nDr. Hayden\u2019s declaration in its decision and found that\u00a0Dr. Hayden\u2019s testimony insufficient to overcome the\u00a0prima facie case of obviousness.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In In re Efthymiopoulos, [2016-1003] (October 18, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision that the claimed invention relating to the administration or an anti-influeza drug “by inhalation through\u00a0the mouth alone” was obvious. There is no dispute that Von … Continue reading