Appellant prevails in Ex parte Belanoff on obviousness

Within Ex parte BELANOFF

As to the prima facie case of obviousness:

“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “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.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).

Here:

In this case, we agree with Appellant that the preponderance of the
evidence of record fails to establish that IFN-α-induced psychosis was
sufficiently linked to glucocorticoid regulatory dysfunction (i.e., increased
levels of cortisol) such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to treat IFN-α-induced psychosis with glucocorticoid
receptor antagonists according to the teachings of Schatzberg (see, e.g., App.
Br. 11-14; FF1 and FF2).

AND

The Examiner has not disputed the facts stated in the Declaration (FF6
and FF8) or provided contrary evidence establishing a link between IFN-α-
induced psychosis and glucocorticoid regulatory dysfunction. We therefore
conclude that this aspect of the rejection is not supported by a preponderance
of the evidence of record.