Ex parte MOHR et al. - Page 5



                  Appeal No. 2001-0400                                                                                      
                  Application No. 08/751,624                                                                                

                  1988).  As part of that analysis, the examiner finds that “a large proportion” of                         
                  phenothiazine dyes would be “inoperative” in the claimed process; that “the                               
                  invention is complex and unpredictable,” and that “the prior art indicates that                           
                  most related dyes [i.e., related to methylene blue] are not effective for the                             
                  claimed functions.”  See the Examiner’s Answer, pages 9-10.  The examiner,                                
                  however, cites no evidence and provides no explanation for any of the findings                            
                  that lead him to conclude that the claims are not enabled.                                                
                         Appellants, on the other hand, cite several sources of evidence in the                             
                  record as supporting enablement.  See the Appeal Brief, pages 19-21, and the                              
                  Reply Brief, page 2.  First, the specification itself discloses use of six                                
                  phenothiazine dyes to treat a blood product, and concludes that “[t]hionine (Th),                         
                  azure A (AzA), azure C (AzC), and TB [toluidine blue] were of similar efficacy as                         
                  MB [methylene blue].”  See page 20.  In addition, Appellants filed at least two                           
                  declarations under 37 CFR § 1.132 that provide additional evidence of                                     
                  enablement.  See declarations of Harald Mohr attached to Paper Numbers 7 and                              
                  9, filed Jan. 28, 1998, and June 10, 1998, respectively. 2                                                
                         In addition to the evidence cited by Appellants, we also note that Heinmets                        
                  tested nine phenothiazine dyes for their effectiveness in inactivating viruses in                         
                  plasma and found that all of them were at least somewhat effective.  See Table 1                          

                                                                                                                            
                  2 Appellants also cite “the testimony of Dr. Mellors” as showing evidence of enablement.  See the         
                  Appeal Brief, page 20.  Appellants presumably refer to the declaration of John W. Mellors, which          
                  was submitted together with several other declarations on July 6, 1998 (attached to Paper No.             
                  21).  The Mellors declaration, however, was executed for submission with respect to a different           
                  patent application.  It is unclear how Dr. Mellors’s opinion—regarding the enablement of different        
                  claims by a different specification—would be relevant to the rejection of the present claims.             

                                                             5                                                              



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007