Appeal No. 1995-4370
Application 07/401,432
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Brugger et al. (Brugger) 3,798,203 Mar. 19, 1974
Riniker et al. Riniker) 3,910,872 Oct. 7, 1975
Sakakibara et al. (Sakakibara) 4,086,221 Apr. 25, 1978
Orlowski et al. (Orlowski `386) 4,622,386 Nov. 11, 1986
Orlowski et al. (Orlowski `728) 4,746,728 May 24, 1988
Swiss (Rittel I) PN 550,774 June 28, 1974
Eur. Pat. App. (Fujii) 0 330 241 Aug. 30, 1989
Rittel et al. (Rittel II), Helvetica Chimica Acta, 104. “Thyrocalcitonin III. Die Synthese des " -
Thyrocalcitonins,” Vol. 51, pp. 924-28 (1968).
Claims 29, 30, 86 and 87 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence
of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Brugger, Riniker, Orlowski I, Sakakibara,
Orlowski II, Rittel I, Rittel II and Fujii. We reverse.
DISCUSSION
In deciding patentability issues under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the court observed in
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987) “[a]nalysis begins with a key legal question
-- what is the invention claimed?” since “[c]laim interpretation . . . will normally
control the remainder of the decisional process.” In the present case, each of the claims
on appeal requires a calcitonin peptide analog with a defined amino acid sequence and
an amide bridge with a specific structure.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007