Appeal No. 1996-2216
Application No. 08/087,058
appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
14, mailed August 2, 1995) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the appellants' brief (Paper No. 13, filed April 13, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed
October 2, 1995) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
BACKGROUND
The claimed invention is directed to treating specific diseases, i.e., inflammatory
skin disorders (e.g., pustular dermatoses, dermatitis or psoriasis), intestinal disorders
(e.g., Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis), or purpura, by administering one or more of
three specific complement inhibitory agents, i.e., C1 inactivator, Factor I and Factor H.
Glover summarizes the complex interactions of the complement system, which is
composed of two different pathways, the "classical" pathway and the "alternative" pathway,
and which consists of a complex group of proteins in body fluids which work together with
antibodies and other factors to play a role in mediating inflammation and defense against
infections (col. 2, line 46 - col. 4, line 36).
OPINION
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, there must be both some
suggestion or motivation to modify the references or combine reference teachings and a
reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, the prior art must teach or suggest all
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007