Appeal No. 1996-0826
Application No. 08/271,583
Clark et al. (Clark), “Peroxidase-H O -Halide System: Cytotoxic Effect on Mammalian
2 2
Tumor Cells,” 45 Blood 2, 161-170 (February 1975).3
Kanofsky, J., “Singlet Oxygen Production by Lactoperoxidase,” 258 The Journal of
Biological Chemistry 10, 5991-5993 (May 25, 1983).
Klebanoff, S. (Klebanoff (01)), “Myeloperoxidase-Halide-Hydrogen Peroxide Antibacterial
System,” 95 Journal of Bacteriology 2131-2138 (1968).
Klebanoff et al. (Klebanoff (31)), “Toxic Effect of the Peroxidase-Hydrogen Peroxide-Halide
Antimicrobial System on Mycobacterium leprae,” 44 Infection and Immunity 2, 534-536 (May
1984).
Lehrer, R., “Antifungal Effects of Peroxidase Systems,” 99 Journal of Bacteriology 2, 361-
365 (August 1969).
The reference relied on by this Merits panel is:
Nedwin et al. (Nedwin) 4 361,908 April 4, 1990
(published European patent application)
3At page 3 of the examiner’s answer, the examiner lists “Clark et al, Blood, 45(2): 161-170 (1975)” as the
“prior art of record relied upon in the rejection of the claims under appeal.” It appears that the examiner is relying on
the actual article appearing in Blood. However, we cannot find the article in this record. Rather, what we find is what
appears to be a copy of a printout from an electronic database which contains an abstract of the article. The form
PTO-892 attached to the first Office action on the merits mailed February 20, 1992 (Paper No. 8) in the grandparent
‘994 application cites the article but adds “(Biosis abstract only).” From this we take it that the examiner has only
considered the abstract which is contained in the printout. This is unfortunate since obviousness determinations
are fact intensive and full text articles are more fact filled than abstracts. We also note that there is no information on
the printout establishing when that information relied upon was publicly available on the data base. Consequently,
our decision is based on a consideration of the abstract which is contained in the printout.
Upon return of the application, the examiner should clarify the record as to what evidence of obviousness is
relied upon in support of the prior art rejections of record.
4The Nedwin reference was supplied by appellant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed
January 3, 1994 (Paper No. 31).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007