Appeal No. 1996-1934
Application 07/884,218
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims 1-14, 16, 18, 19, 22 and 24-31:
At page 4 of the Answer, the examiner states:
Goldberg et al disclose introduction of hyaluronic
acid into peritoneal cavity (see, for example, column 5,
lines 63-68 and column 6, lines 13-15) but do not
disclose introduction of a combination of hyaluronic
acid and a medicament into peritoneal cavity.
However, since della Valle et al. disclose hyaluronic
acid to be a conventional carrier for various
medicaments, including antibiotic clindomycin, a person
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant
invention was made would have been motivated to
introduce into peritoneal cavity a solution of hyaluronic
acid and a medicament in order to prevent surgical
adhesions and to combat intraperitoneal infection.
Appellant argues at page 10 of the Brief that in order:
To determine whether the Examiner’s position
has merit one must determine how far the applied art
went and the standards for surgical procedure to
determine whether the surgeon would leave a solution
of hyaluronic acid and a medicament in the peritoneal
cavity following surgery to combat bacterial infections
on closure.
Appellant emphasizes the idea of leaving a solution of hyaluronic acid and a
medicament in the peritoneal cavity, at page 12 of the Brief, citing the di Zerega
Declaration (Paper No.13, received September 28, 1992), and stating “standard
operating procedure was to remove all adjuvant substances and aspirate all excess
irrigant at closure.” Appellant further emphasized this position in the Reply Brief,
bridging paragraph of pages 3-4, “the specification makes clear that the hyaluronic
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007