Appeal No. 95-2484
Application 07/948,470
lipoproteins from patients having familial hypercholesterolemia using substantially the
same method.
As to the § 101 rejection, we find that the examiner has proffered several theories
as to why he believes one skilled in the art would question the objective truth of the
statement of utility. Some of these theories are said to be based on the teachings of
various references; i.e., Kato, Margulis and Lehninger. However, we find that the examiner
has not applied the legal standard correctly. Since of the cited references, Lehninger does
not teach patients having the claimed disease; i.e., amyloidosis, and Kati and Margulis, do
not teach the appellants’ method of treating amyloidosis, there is no evidence of record
that one skilled in the art would have arrived at the same conclusions as the examiner.
Thus, although proffered under the guise “scientific reasoning,” the examiner’s theories are
undeniably speculative.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
JOAN ELLIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
DOUGLAS W. ROBINSON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007