throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No. 112850056-00000
`
`PATENT
`
`tn re Application of:
`
`John Ft. Evans et al.
`
`Application No.: 12f285,887
`
`Filed: October15,2008
`
`For:
`
`FORMULATION
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`--4--J\—..u\-...v-—a-./-—.a-_—-5;
`
`Group Art Unit: 1628
`
`Examiner: HUI, San Ming Ft.
`
`Confirmation No.: 1199
`
`VIA EFS-WEB
`
`RESPONSE AND AMENDMENT UNDER 37 C.F.FI. § 1.111 AND
`PETITION FOFI EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`in reply to the non-final Office Action mailed December 21, 2010 (“Office Action”),
`
`and pursuant to 37 C.F.Fi. § 1.111, Applicants hereby respectfully request
`
`reconsideration of this application in View of the following amendments and remarks.
`
`Applicants hereby petition for a three-month extension of time to respond to the Office
`
`Action. The requisite tee is being paid concurrently with this Response.
`
`Amendments to the Claims are reflected in the listing of claims, which starts on
`
`page 2 of this paper. Remarks follow the amendment sections of this paper and start
`
`on page 9.
`
`Astrazeneca Ex. 2142 p. 1
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. V. AstraZeneca AB IPR2016-01324
`
`

`
`Application No; 12!285.B87
`Attorney Docket No.: 112850056-00000
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS
`
`Please add new claims 24-53. Please also cancel claims 1-23 without prejudice
`
`or disclaimer. This listing of claims will replace all prior versions and listings of claims in
`
`the application.
`
`Claims 1-23 (Cancelled)
`
`24.
`
`(New) A method for treating a hormonal dependent benign or malignant disease
`
`of the breast or reproductive tract comprising administering intramuscularly to a
`
`human in need of such treatment a formulation comprising:
`
`at least 45 mgml" of fulvestrant;
`
`a mixture of from 17 — 23% w/v of ethanol and benzyl alcohol;
`
`12 - 13% w/v of benzyl benzoate; and
`
`a sufficient amount of castor oil vehicle;
`
`wherein the method achieves a therapeutically significant blood plasma
`
`fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml" for at least two weeks.
`
`25.
`
`(New) The method of claim 24, wherein the ethanol and benzyl alcohol are
`
`present in the same weight./volume amounts.
`
`26.
`
`(New) The method of claim 24, wherein the therapeutically significant blood
`
`plasma fulvestrant concentration is at least 8.5 ngml'1.
`
`27.
`
`(New) The method of claim 24, wherein the hormonal dependent benign or
`
`malignant disease of the breast or reproductive tract is breast cancer.
`
`Astrazeneca Ex. 2142 p. 2
`
`

`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: ‘l1285.0056-00000
`
`(New) The method of claim 24, wherein the therapeutically significant blood
`
`plasma fulvestrant concentration is attained for at least 4 weeks.
`
`(New) The method of claim 24, wherein the method comprises administering
`
`intramuscularly to a human in need of such treatment 5 mL of the formulation.
`
`(New) The method of claim 24, wherein the method further comprises once
`
`monthly administration of the formulation.
`
`(New) The method of claim 24, wherein the formulation comprises:
`
`about 50 mgmi" of fulvestrant;
`
`about 10% w/v of ethanol;
`
`about 10% wfv of benzyl alcohol; and
`
`about 15% w/v of benzyl benzoate;
`
`wherein the therapeutically significant blood plasma fulvestrant concentration is
`
`at least 8.5 ngml".
`
`(New) The method of claim 31, wherein the hormonal dependent benign or
`
`malignant disease of the breast or reproductive tract is breast cancer.
`
`(New) The method of claim 32, wherein the therapeutically significant blood
`
`plasma fulvestrant concentration is attained for at least 4 weeks.
`
`(New) The method of claim 33, wherein the method comprises administering
`
`intramuscularly to a human in need of such treatment 5 mL of the formulation.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Astrazeneca Ex. 2142 p. 3
`
`

`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 112850056-00000
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`(New) The method of claim 34, wherein the method further comprises once
`
`monthly administration of the formulation.
`
`(New) A method for treating a hormonal dependent benign or malignant disease
`
`of the breast or reproductive tract comprising administering intramuscularly to a
`
`human in need of such treatment a formulation consisting essentially of:
`
`at least 45 mgml" of fulvestrant;
`
`a mixture of from 17 — 23% w/v of ethanol and benzyl alcohol;
`
`12 - 18% w/v of benzyl benzoate; and
`
`a sufficient amount of castor oil vehicle;
`
`wherein the method achieves a therapeutically significant blood plasma
`
`fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml" for at least two weeks.
`
`(New) The method of claim 36, wherein the ethanol and benzyl alcohol are
`
`present in the same weight/volume amounts.
`
`(New) The method of claim 36, wherein the therapeutically significant blood
`
`plasma fulvestrant concentration is at least 8.5 ngml".
`
`(New) The method of claim 36, wherein the hormonal dependent benign or
`
`malignant disease of the breast or reproductive tract is breast cancer.
`
`(New) The method of claim 36, wherein the therapeutically significant blood
`
`plasma fulvestrant concentration is attained for at least 4 weeks.
`
`Astrazeneca Ex. 2142 p. 4
`
`

`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 1 12850056-00000
`
`(New) The method of claim 36, wherein the method comprises administering
`
`intramuscularly to a human in need of such treatment 5 mL of the formulation.
`
`(New) The method of claim 36, wherein the method further comprises once
`
`monthly administration of the formulation.
`
`(New) The method of claim 36, wherein the formulation consists essentially of:
`
`about 50 mgml" oi fulvestrant;
`
`about 10% w/V of ethanol;
`
`about 10% w/v of benzyl alcohol; and
`
`about 15% will of benzyl benzoate;
`
`wherein the therapeutically significant blood plasma fulvestrant concentration is
`
`at least 8.5 ngml”.
`
`(New) The method of claim 43, wherein the hormonal dependent benign or
`
`malignant disease of the breast or reproductive tract is breast cancer.
`
`(New) The method of claim 44, wherein the therapeutically significant blood
`
`plasma fulvestrant concentration is attained for at least 4 weeks.
`
`(New) The method of claim 45, wherein the method comprises administering
`
`intramusoularly to a human in need of such treatment 5 mL of the formulation.
`
`(New) The method of claim 46, wherein the method further comprises once
`
`monthly administration of the formulation.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Astrazeneca Ex. 2142 p. 5
`
`

`
`Application No.: 12f285,BB7
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—0O000
`
`48.
`
`(New) A method for treating a hormonal dependent benign or malignant disease
`
`of the breast or reproductive tract comprising administering intramuscularly to a
`
`human in need of such treatment 5 — 5.25 mL of a formulation comprising:
`
`4 - 6% w/V of fulvestrant;
`
`a mixture of from 17 — 23% w/v of ethanol and benzyl alcohol;
`
`12 - 18% wlv of benzyl benzoate; and
`
`a sufficient amount of castor oil vehicle;
`
`wherein the method achieves a therapeutically significant blood plasma
`
`fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml" for at least two weeks.
`
`49.
`
`(New) A method for treating a hormonal dependent benign or malignant disease
`
`of the breast or reproductive tract comprising monthly intramuscular
`
`administration to a human in need of such treatment of a formulation comprising:
`
`4 - 6% w/v of fulvestrant;
`
`a mixture of from 17 — 23% w/v of ethanol and benzyl alcohol;
`
`12 - 18% wlv of benzyl benzoate; and
`
`a sufficient amount of castor oil vehicle;
`
`wherein the method achieves a therapeutically significant blood plasma
`
`fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml” for at least two weeks.
`
`50.
`
`(New) A method for treating a hormonal dependent benign or malignant disease
`
`of the breast or reproductive tract comprising monthly intramuscular
`
`administration to a human in need of such treatment of a formulation comprising:
`
`4 - 6% w/v of fulvestrant;
`
`Astrazeneca Ex. 2142 p. 6
`
`

`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—D0000
`
`a mixture of from 17 — 23% w/v of ethanol and benzyl alcohol;
`
`12 - 18% w/v of benzyl benzoate; and
`
`a sufficient amount of castor oil vehicle;
`
`wherein the formulation is administered in a divided dose; and
`
`wherein the method achieves a therapeutically significant blood plasma
`
`fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml" for at least two weeks.
`
`51.
`
`(New) A method for treating a hormonal dependent benign or malignant disease
`
`of the breast or reproductive tract comprising administering intramuscularly to a
`
`human in need of such treatment 5 — 5.25 mL of a formulation consisting
`
`essentially of:
`
`4 — 6% w/V of fulvestrant;
`
`a mixture of from 17 — 23% w/v of ethanol and benzyl alcohol;
`
`12 — 18% wfv of benzyl benzoate; and
`
`a sufficient amount of castor oil vehicle;
`
`wherein the method achieves a therapeutically significant blood plasma
`
`fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml" for at least two weeks.
`
`52.
`
`(New) A method for treating a hormonal dependent benign or malignant disease
`
`of the breast or reproductive tract comprising monthly intramuscular
`
`administration to a human in need of such treatment of a formulation consisting
`
`essentially of:
`
`4 - 6% w/v of fulvestrant;
`
`a mixture of from 17 — 23% w/v of ethanol and benzyl alcohol;
`
`Astrazeneca Ex. 2142 p. 7
`
`

`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 112850056-00000
`
`12 - 18% w/v of benzyl benzoate; and
`
`a sufficient amount of castor oil vehicle;
`
`wherein the method achieves a therapeutically significant blood plasma
`
`fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml" for at least two weeks.
`
`53.
`
`(New) A method for treating a hormonal dependent benign or malignant disease
`
`of the breast or reproductive tract comprising monthly intramuscular
`
`administration to a human in need of such treatment of a fonnulation consisting
`
`essentially of:
`
`4 - 6% w/v of fulvestrant;
`
`a mixture of from 17 — 23% w/v of ethanol and benzyl alcohol;
`
`12 - 18% w/v of benzyl benzoate; and
`
`a sufficient amount of castor oil vehicle;
`
`wherein the fomtulation is administered in a divided dose; and
`
`wherein the method achieves a therapeutically significant blood plasma
`
`fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml" for at least two weeks.
`
`Astrazeneca Ex. 2142 p. 8
`
`

`
`Application No.: 12285.88?
`Attorney Docket No; ‘i'i285.0056-«D0000
`
`L
`
`Status of the ciaims and amendments
`
`REMARKS
`
`Upon entry of the instant amendments, claims 24-53 wiii be pending in this
`
`appiioation. Cieims 1-23 are being oenoeiieci in this Response without preiudice or
`
`disclaimer. New oieime 24-53 are being added in this Response. Claims 24-35 and
`
`48-50 are directed to methods for treating a hormonei dependent benign or malignant
`
`disease of the breast or reproductive tree’: comprising administering intremuscuieriy ‘to a
`
`human in need of such treatment a formulation comprising various components. Ciaims
`
`35-4? and 51-53 are identical to ciaims 24-35 and 48-50 except that the phrase
`
`“formulation consisting essentieriy of’ replaces the phrase “fonnuiation eompfising’ ihe
`
`various components.
`
`New claim 24 finds support, for example, in original oieim 21. The recitation in
`
`claim 2:!» regarding “at ieaet 45 mg mi” of fuivestrent” finds support, for example, in the
`
`specification at 1: M1283.’ The recitation regarding “a mixture of from 1? - 23% wiv of
`
`ethane! and benzyi eieohoi” finds support, for exampie, in the specification at ‘MI {(3035},
`
`{B036}, and {G042}. The recitation regarding “12 »~ 18% wfv of benzyi benzoate“ finds
`
`support, for exempie, in the specification at 111] [0040] and {D042}. The recitation
`
`regarding “a sufficient amount of caster oi! xrehicie” finds support, for exempie, in the
`
`specification at 11 {(3027}. The recitation regarciing “a therepeuticeily significant blood
`
`1 Uraiess otherwise specifieci, ail citations to the instant specification refer to the
`pagination from the published eppiieetiori US 2010/0152149.
`
`Astrazeneca Ex. 2142 p. 9
`
`

`
`Application No: 12f285,B3‘7
`Attorney Docket No: 112853056-00000
`
`plasma fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml" for at least two weeks” finds
`
`support, for example, in the specification at mi [0027] and {Q1351}.
`
`New claim 25 finds support, for example, in the specification ei1l[DD36]. New
`
`claim 26» finds support, for example. in the specification at ‘F; [GU51]. New ciaim 2'7 lincis
`
`support, for example, in the speoifioetien at ‘ll {G064}. New oiaim 28 finds support, for
`
`example, in the specification at ‘il 10052]. New claim 29 lines support, for example, in
`
`the specification at ‘ii [G063]. New claim 1'-ifltinds support, for example, in the
`
`specification at ‘ll {D023}! New claim 31 finds support, for example, in the specification
`
`at '11 {B053} end the “Formuiation Example” (e.g., ‘ml [@072] to [D{}7S}). Mew claim 32
`
`finds support, for example, in the specification at ‘ll [$064]. New ciaim 33 finds support,
`
`for example, in the specification at ‘fl {£3052}. New oiaim 34 time support, for example}
`
`in the specification at1l E0063]. New claim 35 finds support, for example, in the
`
`specification at ‘B [D023].
`
`Claims 43-50 share various iimitations with claim 24, for which support has been
`
`identified above. The recitation in claim 48 regarding administration of “.5 —~ 5.25 mL” of
`
`formulation finals support, for example, in the specification et1l{flD34]. The recitation in
`
`claim 48 regarding “4 - 6% WW of iulvestrehf’ finds support, for example, in the
`
`specification at11[D025}. The recitation in claim 49 regarding “monthly intramuscular
`
`aciministration" finds support, for exampie, in the specification at'1l [D023]. The
`
`recitation in cieim Si} regatrciing “the formulation [being] administered in a divided dose”
`
`finds support, for exempts, in the specification at ‘it [0053].
`
`Beoeuse oieims 36-4? and 51-53 are identical to cieims24-35 end 48-50 except
`
`for the transitional phrase (“consisting essentialiy oi” instead of “oomprising”), the same
`
`-19..
`
`Astrazeneca EX. 2142 p. 10
`
`

`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 112850056-00000
`
`disclosure from the instant specification cited above for claims 24—35 and 48-50
`
`provides support for claims 36-47 and 51-53. The instant amendments do not add new
`
`matter.
`
`ll. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`The Office rejected claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over European Patent Specification No. EP 0 346 014 (“Dukes”) in view of US Reissue
`
`Patent No. 28,690 (“Lehman.n"), Great Britain Patent Specification No. GB 1 569 286
`
`(“GB 1 569 286"), Osborne et at, Journal of National Cancer Institute, 87(10):746—750
`
`(1995) (“Osborne”), and Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences, 18”‘ ed., p. 219 (1990)
`
`(“ Remington") .
`
`Applicants cancelled claims 1-23 in the instant Response. Thus, this rejection is
`
`now moot. However, in an effort to advance prosecution, and to the extent that the
`
`Office is considering applying the arguments from the outstanding obviousness rejection
`
`to the newly added claims, Applicants will address the rejections in the Office Action
`
`below.
`
`According to the Office, Dukes teaches that “antiestrogen agents, including
`
`fulvestrant, are useful in treating postmenopausal symptoms such as urogenital atrophy
`
`affecting the vagina." Office Action at 3. The Office further argues that Dukes “teaches
`
`that antiestrogen agent, including fulvestrant, may be used in a dosage of 50mg to 5g in
`
`vehicle comprising Castor oil and benzyl alcohol." id. The Office acknowledges,
`
`however, that among other deficiencies, Dukes “does not expressiy teach the
`
`employment of benzyl benzoate .
`
`.
`
`. as part of the vehicle herein.” Id.
`
`-11-
`
`AstraZeneca Ex. 2142 p. 11
`
`

`
`Application No.: t2f285.837
`Attorney Docket No.: 1‘l285.0056—00OO0
`
`in an attempt to cure the shortcomings in Dukes, the Office cites Lehmann as
`
`teaching "that benzyl benzoate and castor oil are well-known solvent useful as
`
`conventional carriers for steroids." Office Action at 3.
`
`In the Office's view GB 1 569 286
`
`“teaches an intramuscular injection of testosterone derivative containing castor
`
`oil/benzoate in a ratio of 6:4” (id.); Osborne “teaches fulvestrant as useful in treating
`
`human breast cancer’ (id. at 4); and Remington teaches “that ethanol is one of the most
`
`commonly used solvents in pharmaceutical industry” (id.).
`
`The Office concludes that:
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ
`benzyl benzoate, ethanol, castor oil, and benzyl alcohol, in the herein
`claimed weight percent, with fulvestrant, in the dosage herein, in a method
`of treating postmenopausal symptoms such as urogenital atrophy or
`treating breast cancer because fulvestrant is known to be useful in treating
`urogenital atrophy, a benign disease of the female reproductive tract in the
`vagina and breast cancer.
`
`Office Action at 4. According to the Office:
`
`[C]ombining one or more agents, which are known to be useful as
`commonly used solvents, such as benzyl benzoate, ethanol, castor oil,
`and benzyl alcohol, together and incorporated such combination with an
`estrogen derivatives, fulvestrant, would be reasonably expected to be
`useful in formulating a phannaceutical composition.
`
`Office Action at 4. The Office further argues that “the optimization of result
`
`effect[ive] parameters (e.g., amount of excipients, dosage range, and dosing
`
`regimens) is obvious as being within the skill of the artisan, absent evidence to
`
`the contrary.” id. at 5. Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.
`
`-12-
`
`AstraZeneca Ex. 2142 p. 12
`
`

`
`Application i~lo.: 12/285,88?
`Attorney Docket No: 11285.{3056—0O00O
`
`ILA One of ordinary skill in the art would not have oomblned the cited
`raforoneos in the manner proposed in the rejection
`
`The Office relies on Dukes to argue that formulations comprising fuiveotrant “in a
`
`dosage of 50mg to 59 in vehicle oomprising oaslror oi! and benzyl aioohof’ were known
`
`in the art. Office Action at 3. The filifiioe than states that one of ordinary skiii in the art
`
`would have added ethanol and boozy! benzoaie. to Dukes formuiation to arrive at the
`
`formuiaiion recited in the claims.
`
`id. The Office, however, provides no explanation for
`
`why one of ordinary skill in the an wouici have modified Dukes formuiatiors in the
`
`proposed manner. As will be expiaineci oeiow, one of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`have modified Dukes formulation at least because the addition of boozy! bonzoate
`
`wouicl have been expeoieo to reduce the soluoiiity of iulvestrant in the iormuiation.
`
`Because fulvootrani is difficult to iorrnoiate, one of ordinary skili in tho art wooid not
`
`have preparoo a formutation in which fuivestrant was expected to have a tower solubility
`
`than that in the initial formulation. See, o.g., specification at1i[0{)14}.
`
`The passage from Dukes cited by the Qriioe as diooiosing foivestrant
`
`formuiaiions indicates that when administering a pure anfrostrogen by periodic
`
`intramusoularl inieoiion, an oily soiotion of the pure antiostrogen “containing arachis or
`
`oastor oii Land] on alcohol such as bonzyl aicohoi” is preferred. Dukes at 7, it. 19-23.
`
`Dukes aiso disoiosos two different formulations of fuivostrant in its working oxampies.
`
`Example 1 from Dukes discloses fulvostrant “in a mixture of propylene glycol: ethanol:
`
`water: poloxamer 40?." Dukes at 8, ii. 35-37‘. Example 2 discloses a formuiarion
`
`“oontain{ing] 50 mg of ifuivesirantj, 400 mg of benzyi alcohol and sufficient caster oii to
`
`-13-
`
`Astrazeneca EX. 2142 p. 13
`
`

`
`Applioalion No.: 121285.887‘
`Attorney Docket No; 112850055-£30000
`
`bring the solution to a volume of ‘i ml” (“Dukes Castor oil formulation”). Dukes at 9,
`
`ll. 21-23.
`
`No explanation for why one of ordinary skill in the all would have moclllierl the
`
`Dukes oaetor oil formulation in any way is set forth in the Office Action. The Office
`
`seems to imply that one of ordinary skill in the art would have added ethanol and benzyl
`
`benzoete to Dukes oaetor oil formulation simply because ethanol and oenzyl lzenzoate
`
`were “known to be useful as commonly used solvents.” Office Action at 3. The focus in
`
`an obviousneee rejection, however, is not on what one of ordinary skill in the art could
`
`have clone, but rather “on what a person of ordinary el-till lo the pertinent art would have
`
`known at the time of the invention, and on what such a person would have reasonably
`
`expected to have been able to do in View of that knowledge.” ll/l.P.E.P. § 2141 .ll
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`in this regard, one of ordinary skill in the art attempting to improve any of the
`
`Dukes iorrnulations would have determined the solubility of fulvestranl in any test
`
`solvent before adding the solvent to the forrnolation. See, for example, Table 2 of the
`
`instant application, which reports solubility of fulveslrant in master oil, benzyl alcohol,
`
`ethanol, and loenzyl benzoete. According to Table 2, the solubility of fulveetrant in
`
`benzyl benzoele is 6.15 mgml“, whereas the corresponding solubility in benzyl alcohol
`
`is >200 mgml“. Thus, based on solubility clata, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have realized that fulveetrenl is more than one orcleror magnitude more soluble in
`
`benzyl alcohol than in loenzyl loenzoate. Therefore, incorporating oenzyl benzoete into
`
`Dukes caster oil formulation at the expense of reducing the concentration of benzyl
`
`alcohol, as would be required to arrive at the formulation recited in the instant claims
`
`..‘j4..
`
`Astrazeneca EX. 2142 p. 14
`
`

`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No: 1 128S.ClD5i6-00000
`
`starting from Dukes disclosure, would have been expected to decrease the solubility of
`
`fulvestrant in the resulting formulation. None of the references cited by the Office
`
`suggests otherwise. As mentioned before, decreasing the solubility of fulvestrant in a
`
`given fonnulation would exacerbate the problem of finding a suitable fonnulation for
`
`fulvestrant.
`
`Thus, none of the cited references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art the modification of any of Dukes formulations by the addition of benzyl
`
`benzoate. For at least this reason, the Office has not made a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness and Applicants respectfully request that this rejection be withdrawn.
`
`I|.B
`
`The Office has not made the necessary factual findings to support a
`conclusion of obviousness
`
`By arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have added ethanoi and
`
`benzyl benzoate to Dukes castor oil formulation simply because the additional solvents
`
`were known in the an (Office Action at 3), the Office seems to be basing the rejection in
`
`a “combination of prior art elements” rationale. See, e.g., M.P.E.P. § 2143.A. However,
`
`an obviousness rejection under this rationale requires, among other requisites: (1) “a
`
`finding that .
`
`.
`
`. each element [in the combination] merely performs the same function as
`
`it does separately” and (2) “a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.” Id. The Office has not
`
`met either of these requirements.
`
`First, the Office has not shown that the solvents proposed to be added to Dukes
`
`castor oil formulation, ethanol and benzyl benzoate, would have performed the same
`
`function in the resulting formulation as they performed separately, As explained in the
`
`-15-
`
`AstraZeneca Ex. 2142 p. 15
`
`

`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 112850056-00000
`
`previous section, the addition of benzyl benzoate to a given fulvestrant formulation
`
`would have been expected to reduce the solubility of fulvestrant in the original
`
`formulation. Table 3 in the instant specification compares the solubility of fulvestrant in
`
`various formulations comprising ethanol, benzyl alcohol, and castor oil in the presence
`
`and absence of benzyl benzoate.
`
`In each case, the solubility of fulvestrant in the
`
`solution containing benzyl benzoate increased compared to the solubility of fulvestrant
`
`in the corresponding formulation without benzyl benzoate.
`
`Id. The trend shown in
`
`Table 3 demonstrates that benzyl benzoate is not “perforrn[ing] the same function as it
`
`does separately.”
`
`Second, because the addition of benzyl benzoate does not decrease the
`
`solubility of fulvestrant in the resulting formulation, as would have been expected, the
`
`Office cannot find that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
`
`results of the combination were predictable.”
`
`Even under an “obvious to try” rationale, the Office needs to show that "one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success.” M.P.E.P. § 2143.E.
`
`in the instant case, as shown
`
`in Section ||.A above, one of ordinary skill in the art could not have expected that adding
`
`benzyl benzoate to Dukes castor oil formulation, while decreasing the amount of benzyl
`
`alcohol as would be required to arrive at the formulation recited in the instant claims,
`
`would have resulted in a suitable fulvestrant formulation.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Office has not met its burden of proving a prima
`
`facfe case of obviousness. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that this
`
`rejection be withdrawn.
`
`-16-
`
`AstraZeneca Ex. 2142 p. 16
`
`

`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 112850056-00000
`
`III. Double Patenting Rejection
`
`The Office rejected claims 21-22 under the nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting doctrine as being unpatentable over: (a) claims 1-9 of US. Patent
`
`No. 6,774,122 and (b) claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,160.
`
`Because Applicants cancelled claims 21 and 22 in this Response, this rejection is
`
`now moot. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that this rejection be withdrawn.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicants respectfully
`
`request reconsideration of this application and the timely allowance of the pending
`
`claims.
`
`Please grant any extensions of time required to enter this response and charge
`
`any required fees not included with this Hesponse to Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`Dated: June 20, 2011
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`/
`
`By: W V/\
`
`Carlos M. Téllez
`
`Fteg. No. 48,638
`(202) 408-4123
`
`-17-
`
`AstraZeneca Ex. 2142 p. 17

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket