Ex parte CHANG et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 95-4491                                                          
          Application No. 07/864,210                                                  


          Chakrabarti et al. (Chakrabarti), "Conformational Studies of                
          Vitreous Polysaccharides," in The Association for Research in               
          Vision and Ophthalmology, Incorporated MEETING SCHEDULE, p. 97              
          (Sarasota, FL, Spring Meeting, April 25-29, 1974).                          
               The sole issue in this appeal is whether claims 1, 9, 13,              
          19, 21, 23-28 and 30-32 were properly rejected under 35 U.S.C.              
          § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pape,                   
          Balazs, Healon, Kawano, Drugs in Japan, and Chakrabarti.3                   
                                     Discussion                                       
               The claims on appeal are directed to a composition                     
          comprising a mixture of chondroitin sulfate and sodium                      
          hyaluronate in an aqueous buffer (see claim 26) and a method                
          of using the composition for protecting human or animal                     
          ophthalmic endothelial or epithelial cells subject to trauma                
          during surgery (see claim 1).  The mixture is said to exhibit               
          an unexpectedly synergistic viscosity which exceeds the sum of              
          the individual viscosities of the chondroitin sulfate and                   
          sodium hyaluronate.                                                         
               According to appellants (Specification, pp. 2-3):                      


               3    Claims 24 and 28 were also finally rejected under                 
          35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate                      
          descriptive support.  However, this rejection was withdrawn by              
          the examiner.  See Answer, p. 2.                                            
                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007