Appeal No. 2001-1298 Page 2
Application No. 08/304,602
Drabick et al. (Drabick), “Covalent Polymyxin B-starch and polymyxin B-
immunoglobulin conjugates as novel anti-endotoxin reagents,” Clinical Research,
Vol. 40, No. 2, p. 287 (1992)
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-21, 28, 29, 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Drabick in view of admitted prior art at pages
14-15, 26-28, 29 and 30 of appellant’s specification.
Claims 7, 23-27 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Drabick in view of admitted prior art at pages 16-18 of
appellant’s specification, further in view of Jawetz and the admitted prior art on
page 24 (Table 2) of appellant’s specification.
Claims 22 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Drabick in view of admitted prior art at page 16 of appellant’s
specification, further in view of Jawetz and the admitted prior art on page 24 of
appellant’s specification and further in view of Hawiger.
We reverse
DISCUSSION
Prima facie obviousness based on a combination of references requires
that the prior art provide “a reason, suggestion, or motivation to lead an inventor
to combine those references.” Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
[E]vidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine may
flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one
of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the
problem to be solved.... The range of sources available, however,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007