Appeal No. 1996-1273
Application 07/956,003
than that known for Vitamin B . The same difference in uptake mechanism is also seen between
12
Vitamin B as taught by Russell-Jones and the “intrduodenal injection (oral)” of an hepatocyte directed
12
vesicle microparticle disclosed in Geho (pages 16-17 and 22 and Supplemental Experiment 3; see also,
e.g., pages 3 and 7-11 and page 23, second full paragraph). A different mechanism would also appear
to be the case with the use suggested for the protein-coupled activated liposomes in Papahadjopoulos
(e.g., page 19). Thus, on this record, one of ordinary skill in this art would not have been led to8
combine Russell-Jones with any and all of Ranney, Papahadjopoulos and Geho in view of the
differences in the uptake mechanism for the drug delivery system.
Thus, on the record before us, we find that the mere fact that it was known in the art to couple
microspheres to much different target compounds to form drug delivery systems that will provide
epithelial uptake across bowel mucosa as shown by Ranney, Papahadjopoulos and Geho, as relied on
by the examiner, would have been insufficient to suggest to one of ordinary skill in this art that the
coupling of a microparticle in place of a single drug compound to Vitamin B in the drug delivery
12
system of Russell-Jones would reasonably be expected to successfully permit the Vitamin B to
12
effectively transport the complex into the circulation or lymphatic drainage system of a host via the
intestinal mucosal epithelium. Accordingly, because the examiner has not provided evidence and/or
scientific reasoning in the record why one of ordinary skill in this art would have found in the combined
teachings of Russell-Jones, Ranney and Geho the suggestion and the reasonable expectation of success
in modifying the single drug coupled to Vitamin B of Russell-Jones in order to arrive at the claimed
12
invention, it is manifest that the only direction to appellants’ claimed invention as a whole encompassed
by the appealed claims on the record before us is supplied by appellants’ own specification. Compare
Vaeck, 947 F.2d at 493-95, 20 USPQ2d at 1443-44.
8The mechanism taught by Guo (see, e.g., col. 3, lines 1-2, and col. 14, lines 30-59, and Example
XII) is simply dissimilar in that this reference discloses that the liposome per se binds to mucosal tissue,
inter alia, ocular tissue and gastrointestinal mucosa, where the drug is released.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007