Ex parte NAGAI et al. - Page 13




                Appeal No. 1996-2211                                                                                                       
                Application No. 08/018,546                                                                                                 


                        We recognize appellants’ reference to unexpected results.  At page 3 of their Brief, appellants                    

                state “[a]s shown in Table 2, and contrasted with the transportation procedure which use no thiol, the                     

                percentage of surviving embryos was increased very significantly and the percentage of excellent                           
                embryos was increased dramatically.”  To distinguish the results of Table 2  of the specification with6                                        

                results from studies in which thiol compounds were not present in the media, appellants state, in the                      

                bridging paragraph of pages 5-6 of the Brief, “[t]he reference Yang . . . describes the effect of                          

                temperature conditions in preserving fresh bovine embryos.  It can be understood from this reference . .                   

                . that the survival ratio of embryos is relatively high in incubation for a short time of 4 to 6 hours, but the            

                survival ratio drastically drops in incubation for a long time.”  The results obtained by Takahashi, Table                 

                1, are exactly the same as those set forth in appellants’ specification, Table 1, regarding the number of                  

                embryos that developed to blastocyst stage when cultured in the presence of 10 or 50TM cysteamine.                         

                The survival rates obtained by appellants are therefore expected not unexpected.  In order for a                           

                showing of  “unexpected results” to be probative evidence of non-obviousness, it falls upon the                            

                applicant to at least establish: (1) that there actually is a difference between the results obtained through              


                        6Example 2, page 6, of appellants specification states that “[b]ovine embryos . . . cultured in Example            
                1 were used for transpotation [sic] experiments.”  Upon consideration of Example 1, it is unclear to us whether            
                the bovine embryos used in the transportation experiments of Example 2, were originally cultured in the presence           
                or absence of a thiol compound.  If prosecution is continued on this subject matter, appellants should clarify the         
                specifics of example 2’s control sample.  For example, where the control embryos cultured in the presence or               
                absence of a thiol compound prior to transportation.                                                                       

                                                                    13                                                                     








Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007