Ex Parte ZIMMERMANN et al - Page 7



              Appeal No. 2003-0919                                                                   Page 7                 
              Application No. 09/463,097                                                                                    
              salt of imatinib.  Nor can the examiner point to any passage in Zimmermann disclosing                         
              or suggesting applicants' method for making the $-crystalline form, or establishing a                         
              reasonable basis for concluding that the methanesulfonic acid addition salt of imatinib                       
              meets all limitations of the appealed claims.  On the contrary, the examiner                                  
              acknowledges that "Zimmermann is silent as to the existence of one or more forms for                          
              its salts;" and the examiner has withdrawn the previously entered rejection of process                        
              claim 12 (Paper No. 17, section (3)).                                                                         
                     On these facts, the examiner is not in a position to invoke the principles                             
              enunciated in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596-97 (CCPA 1980);                            
              In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977); and In re                                  
              Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971).  Rather, the facts                               
              here more closely resemble those presented to another merits panel of this board in Ex                        
              parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986).  As stated by the Board in                          
              Skinner:                                                                                                      
                             We are mindful that there is a line of cases represented by In re                              
                     Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) which indicates                                      
                     that where an examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation                              
                     asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter                         
                     may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner                             
                     possesses the authority to require an applicant to prove that the subject                              
                     matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic                                
                     relied on.  Nevertheless, before an applicant can be put to this                                       
                     burdensome task, the examiner must provide some evidence or scientific                                 
                     reasoning to establish the reasonableness of the examiner's belief that the                            
                     functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art.  In the                          
                     case before us, no such evidence or reasoning has been set forward.  [Id.                              
                     at 1789].                                                                                              
                     The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.                                                    







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007