Appeal No. 1997-2518
Application 08/359,642
Given the specification’s straightforward protocols for synthesizing, identifying
and using bradykinin antagonists with formulas corresponding to those of the claims,
we are satisfied that the specification provides reasonable guidance for one skilled in
the art to make and use bradykinin antagonists, in addition to those absolutely defined
in the specification, and that the experimentation necessary, while considerable, would
not be undue.
Moreover, there is evidence of record that, at the time of the invention, some
guidance was available in the prior art. “[A] patent need not teach, and preferably
omits, what is well known in the art.” Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802
F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987).
Stewart, a reference of record in this case,3 and discussed at length in related appeal
nos. 1997-0100 and 1997-1309, discloses a series of bradykinin antagonists with
substitutions at positions zero, two, three, five, six, seven and eight of the native
bradykinin. According to Stewart, substitution at position seven is critical for antagonist
activity, while the additional substitutions at positions zero, two, three, five, six and eight
affect various properties of the antagonists. For example, substitutions at positions five,
six and eight of an antagonist enhance potency, while substitutions at positions two and
three confer tissue specificity. Tables I and II.
The examiner has not explained why the specification’s straightforward protocols
for synthesizing, identifying and using bradykinin antagonists, together with what was
3 Submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement filed March 7, 1995.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007