Appeal 2007-2864
Application 10/747,798
already found that RAC anticipates the subject matter of claims 1-12, 15, 18,
23-28, 33, 38-48, 51, and 54.
Appellant argues further that the Examiner has failed to set forth any
suggestion or motivation for the combination (Reply Br. 11). Specifically,
Appellant argues that “the claims at issue are directed to inhibiting,
suppressing or preventing growth of papillomavirus-transformed cells in a
hyperplastic lesion. No specific motivation to provide for inhibiting,
suppressing or preventing growth of a papillomavirus-transformed cells in a
hyperplastic lesion using a flavorant-containing composition containing p53
. . . has been cited by the Examiner.” (Id. at 12)
RAC teaches topical application of a mouthwash comprising the
vector, and Zhang teaches that an oral pharmaceutical composition
comprising an adenoviral vector may include a flavorant. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to include a flavorant as
taught by Zhang in the mouthwash of RAC. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (“One of the ways in
which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there
existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an
obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.”)
CONCLUSION
As the Examiner has established a prima facie case of unpatentability
as to all the claims on appeal, the Examiner is affirmed.
18
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013