Ex parte ROELOF JOHANNES HENDRIK KRUISINGA
Appeal 2008-5626
Application 10/472,029
Technology Center 1600
Decided: February 4, 2009
BPAI
Claim at issue was:
6. A method of treating sleep latency in ADHD disorder in a human comprising administering to a human in need thereof, a therapeutically effective amount of at least one member of the group consisting of melatonin or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of melatonin.
According to BPAI the prior art taught melatonin for sleep issues in any mammal. Another reference stated that patients with ADHD on the drugs have sleep problems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use melatonin to treat sleep latency. The applicant had attempted to argue that "“Flaugh is directed to the use of a variety of melatonin related compounds to treat sleeping disorders in humans with DIMS disorders such insomnia and not treating sleep latency, let alone in ADHD disorder patients”Appellant contends that the “Stein reference is directed to a study of sleep problems in stimulant treated and untreated children with ADHD . . . It had nothing to do with teaching the treatment of sleep latency in ADHD patients” The Board disregarded the applicant's arguments saying the facts were such that it would have been obvious and predicted to have success.
The case can be found here.
Posts
