Ex Parte Rosengart et al - Page 5


                 Appeal No.  2007-0531                                                          Page 5                   
                 Application No.  10/341,679                                                                             
                 vector expressing VEGF121 as taught by Tischer.  Answer, page 5.  The                                   
                 Examiner asserts that the therapeutic advantages of VEGF121 would serve to                              
                 “enhance the desired therapeutic outcome” of Hammond’s method.  Answer,                                 
                 bridging paragraph, pages 5-6.                                                                          
                        Appellants assert that Hammond “does not disclose directly injecting a                           
                 pharmaceutical composition to a heart” but instead “discloses intraarterial [(e.g.                      
                 administration into the coronary arteries)] delivery of an expression vector.”                          
                 Brief, page 3.  Appellants explain that “the coronary arteries are not part of the                      
                 heart, as evidenced by the schematics from the Texas Heart Institute[ ]5. . . .”                        
                 Brief, page 4.  Appellants assert that Tischer discloses the direct injection of                        
                 VEGF protein to the site of damaged cardiac muscle, but “does not disclose or                           
                 suggest administering an adenoviral vector encoding VEGF via multiple                                   
                 injections directly to the heart, much less multiple injections that are administered                   
                 within about 10 minutes.”  Id.                                                                          
                        We find that the weight of the evidence falls in favor of Appellants.  While                     
                 the coronary arteries may be attached to the heart, it is our opinion that the                          
                 evidence of record establishes (see the two documents from the Texas Heart                              
                 Institute) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that injection                    
                 into the coronary arteries is not the same as injection on the internal surface of                      
                 the heart as is required by Appellants’ claimed invention.                                              
                                                                                                                         
                 5 The Evidence Appendix of Appellants’ Brief, includes two documents from the Texas Heart               
                 Institute Heart Information Center (Texas Heart Institute): (1) “Anatomy of the Heart: The              
                 Coronary Arteries – Texas Heart Institute Heart Information Center,” (Dec. 28, 2005)                    
                 http://www.tmc.edu/thi/coroanat.html; and (2) “Anatomy of the Heart – Texas Heart Institute Heart       
                 Information Center,” (Dec. 29, 2005) http://www.tmc.edu/thi/anatomy2.html.  This evidence “was          
                 entered into the record by the Examiner as indicated in the ‘Advisory Action’ dated February 1,         
                 2006.”  Brief, Evidence Appendix.                                                                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013