Appeal No. 1997-0661
Application No. 08/257,866
required in claim 1. In re O’Farrell, 858 F.2d 894, 904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (obviousness also requires a “reasonable expectation of
success”).
As recognized by appellants (Brief, page 6) “[t]he deficiencies of Soloviev
are not made up for by the teachings of Barenholz.” Barenholz is directed to
(Abstract) “[a] method of treating a relatively aged animal to reverse age-related
changes in the lipid composition of organ and tissue cells, such as heart muscle
cells.” We agree with appellants (Brief, page 6) that “Barenholz provides no basis
for predicting that intravenously administered liposomes would be effective in
lowering arterial pressure in a subject suffering from hypertension.”
In our opinion, the examiner failed to meet her burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Having determined that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness, we find it unnecessary to discuss the Guyton6 and
Gabazon et al.7 references relied on by appellants (Brief, page 7) to rebut any such
prima facie case.
6 Textbook of Medical Physiology, 269 (7th ed. 1986).
7 “Liposomes as In Vivo Carriers of Adriamycin: Reduced Cardiac Uptake and
Preserved Antitumor Activity in Mice,” Cancer Research, Vol. 42, pp. 4734-4739
(1982).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007