Appeal No. 95-2484
Application 07/948,470
examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 39) and supplemental Answer (Paper No. 42), as well as
the three declarations of Mr. Hirai (attachments to Paper Nos. 9 and 14; and Paper No.
20), and we find ourselves in substantial agreement with the findings of facts and
conclusions of law set forth in the appellants’ briefs. Accordingly, we reverse all the
rejections for the reasons set forth therein. We comment only briefly.
With respect to the § 103 rejections, we agree with the appellants that there is
nothing in the applied prior art of record which would have suggested the claimed method
to one of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner alleges that it would have been obvious to
treat those patients of Rubinow who have both hypercholesterolemia and amyloidosis with
the hypercholesteremia dextran-sulfate cellulose column plasmapheresis technique
described by Homma. However, we find no evidence of record that patients having
systemic amyloidosis are likely to be afflicted with familial hypercholesterolemia, a genetic
disorder. Thus, treatment of the latter group of patients does not teach or suggest
treatment of the former. Nor is there any evidence
of record that the amyloid proteins removed from serum using the appellants’ method fall
within the types of lipoproteins which are selectively removed using the method of
plasmapheresis taught by Homma. Thus, in our view the removal of serum amyloid
proteins using dextran-sulfate cellulose column plasmapheresis from a patient afflicted with
amyloidosis differs from, and is not suggested by, the removal of low density
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007