Appeal No. 1997-3945
Application No. 08/410,390
Therefore, the combined disclosures of Goodwin and
Martinez, regardless how viewed, would not have led a person
having ordinary skill in the art to the method recited in
claims 17 through 20 requiring that appellants'
immunoconjugate be preformed. Furthermore, we find no
teaching, suggestion, or disclosure in Pastan '985 or Wilchek
which would cure the above-noted deficiency of the combined
disclosures of Goodwin and Martinez. For this reason, the
rejection of claims 17 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pastan '985 in view of Martinez, Wilchek,
and Goodwin is reversed.
-14-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007