Appeal No. 2001-1907 Page 7
Application No. 08/694,315
Patent No. 5,780,026, McMichael and Wood, that rejection is also included in the
discussion below.
Initially, the panel would like to note that our review was hampered by the
lack of claim-by-claim analysis. For example Yoshii II was cited for teaching that
histamine activated immunoglobulin has eosinophilia-suppressive action,
immunomodulating action, etc., as well as for disclosing methods of treating
eosinophilia, inflammation and allergic diseases through the use of administering
histamine activated immunoglobulin. The claims drawn to the histamine
activated immunoglobulin per se, however, do not include these limitations.
Moreover, the examiner cited several abstracts in the rejection. While the
abstracts appeared to be cumulative to the Yoshii I reference, the panel strongly
urges the examiner to obtain the full text articles in order to allow for meaningful
review of prior art that serves the basis for the rejection.
Yoshii I is cited by the rejection for teaching histamine activated
immunoglobulin and pharmaceutical compositions thereof. In addition, the
reference teaches the activity of the activated immunoglobulin, i.e., that the
activated immunoglobulin has eosinophilia-suppressive action,
immunomodulating action, etc., as well as disclosing methods of treating
eosinophilia, inflammation and allergic disease by administering histamine
activated immunoglobulin. Yoshii II is cited as explained above. Naiki is cited for
teaching that histamine activated immunoglobulin is useful for treating allergic
disease, Getlik is cited for teaching the treatment of asthma with histamine
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007