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,
A-Ile-Tyr-Leu-Gly-Gly-Pro-Phe-Ser-Pro-Asn-Val-Leu-B,
wherein A is H or an acyl group and B is OH or NR , each R
2
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.
OPINION
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:
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007