Appeal No. 1997-0472
Application No. 08/259,152
sulfate, having a pH within the claimed range. Appellants'
principal contention is that "the plasminogen activator of D'H
is urokinase
while that of the present invention is t-PA (urokinase is an
entirely different protein from t-PA)" (page 5 of brief). On
the other hand, it is the examiner's position that D'H
discloses solutions of an anionic polymer and plasminogen
activator in general, i.e., the reference is not limited to
solutions of urokinase.
Our review of the reference disclosure requires us to
reject appellants' argument that the plasminogen activator of
D'H is urokinase. In the description of the prior art at
column 1, lines 15 et seq., D'H discloses that urokinase is
very sensitive and its effect is diminished very quickly on
inhibition, whereas U.S. Patent No. 3,998,947 describes "a
process for extracting a novel plasminogen activator from
animal organs which was at least equivalent to urokinase in
regard to activity but which was unaffected by inhibitors."
In the next sentence, the reference discloses that "[t]he
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007