Appeal No. 1996-1811
Application No. 08/169,968
third composition which is useful for the purpose. [Answer, page 5, lines 11-
14.]
The examiner further concludes that variations in the concentrations of the ingredients
claimed from the concentrations disclosed in the prior art are matters of experimental
design and optimization (answer, page 5, lines 6-9) and that dissolving three known
components in a well known buffer is an obvious method of making an obvious solution
(answer, sentence bridging pages 5-6).
When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be
some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references. In In re Geiger, 815
F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987), the Federal Circuit held that
although the prior art disclosed the separate components of the claimed new compositions
for the same general use of treating cooling water systems, a prima facie case of
obviousness was not established “absent some teaching, suggestion, or incentive
supporting the combination.” Here, there is nothing in the prior art to lead a person of
ordinary skill in the art to the claimed combination of clot enhancing agents. On the
contrary, the prior art suggests using these agents in the alternative.
Lewis discloses using snake venom as an alternative clotting reagent to a
combination of thrombin and a heparin neutralizing substance (i.e., protamine sulfate or
barium chloride). JP 58-1460 discloses using snake venom or protamine sulfate as
alternative clotting reagents. JP 61-53567 discloses an alternative snake venom
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007