Ex parte NESTOR JR. et al. - Page 2

          Appeal No. 94-3208                                                               
          Application 07/743,613                                                           

                Claim 1, which is illustrative of the subject matter on                    
          appeal, reads as follows:                                                        
                1.  A polypeptide having the amino acid sequence                           
          A-(SEQ ID NO:  1)-B,                                                             
          wherein A is H or an acyl group and B is OH or NR , each R                       
          independently selected from H, C -C  alkyl, C -C  haloalkyl, and1 6          1 6                              
          C -C  aralkyl.                                                                   
           1  6                                                                            
                The prior art references relied on by the examiner are:                    
          Barna et al. (Barna), "Macrophage Activation by a Synthetic                      
          Peptide of Human C-Reactive Protein (CRP) (Meeting Abstract)," 46                
          Federal Proceeding no. 3, 762 (1987).                                            
          Deodhar et al. (Deodhar), "Enhanced Anti-Tumor Effect by                         
          Combination Therapy with Human C-Reactive Protein (CRP) and IL2                  
          in C57 Mice Bearing the Fibrosarcoma T241," 3 FASEB J. (Meeting                  
          Abstract), A831 (1989).                                                          
                The issue presented for review is whether the examiner erred               
          in rejecting claims 1 through 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b)                 
          as described by Barna or Deodhar.                                                
                The true test of any prior art relied on to show that a                    
          chemical compound is old, is whether the prior art places the                    
          disclosed compound in the possession of the public.  In re Brown,                
          329 F.2d 1006, 1011, 141 USPQ 245, 249 (CCPA 1964).  Adhering to                 
          that test, and elaborating on the relevant principle of law, the                 
          court in In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 273-74, 158 USPQ 596,                     
          600-01 (CCPA 1968) stated that:                                                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007