Appeal No. 1997-3010
Application 08/042,461
3. Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies on Moskowitz and Urquhart.
We reverse all rejections.
DISCUSSION
Moskowitz describes a technique for localizing horseradish peroxidase
(HRP) by incorporating it into a controlled release polymer (PVA), then applying by
“painting” the impregnated polymer onto a cerebral blood vessel, and covering the
coated vessel with unimpregnated PVA or pluronics to limit release solely to the
interface between the impregnated polymer and the blood vessel (page 463, lines
1-5). The examiner recognizes that Moskowitz does not teach using an agent for
the treatment of a vascular disorder. The examiner relies on the following statement
found on page 464 of the Moskowitz reference to make the obviousness rejection:
“The simplicity with which these poly(vinyl alcohol) solutions can be ‘painted’
onto blood vessels opens new possibilities for drug localization.”
The examiner concludes from this statement that “although Moskowitz et
al’s studies do not involve the method of delivering a drug intended for the treatment
of blood vessels, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this
method could be used for such from the above teachings.” (Examiner’s Answer,
page 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007