Appeal No. 1996-2216
Application No. 08/087,058
the claim limitations. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
Here, none of the applied prior art references disclose treating any one of the
specified diseases by administering any one of the specified complement inhibitors.
Those references that treat one of the specified diseases, i.e., Kitano treats ulcerative
colitis and Naka treats psoriasis, do so with a different agent, i.e., K-76 and a 3-
aminopyrazolo[3,4-d]pyrimidine derivative, respectively (Kitano, page 560; Naka, col. 1,
lines 6-28). The examiner has not explained what would have motivated one of ordinary
skill in the art to substitute C1 inactivator, Factor I and/or Factor H for the K-76 of Kitano,
especially since Kitano discloses that K-76 inhibits C5 and Factor I (page 560, col. 1,
para. 1). Naka discloses its 3-aminopyrazolo[3,4-d]pyrimidine derivatives inhibit type III
allergic reactions (col. 4, lines 33-36). The examiner has failed to establish a nexus
between C1 inactivator, Factor I or Factor H and a type III allergic reaction. Thus, the
examiner has failed to establish what would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art
to substitute C1 inactivator, Factor I and/or Factor H for the 3-aminopyrazolo[3,4-
d]pyrimidine derivative of Naka. Similarly, those references that administer one of the
specified complement inhibitors treat different diseases, i.e., EP '611 treats an
autoimmune disease with Factor I and/or H (abstract) and Lezdey treats allergic rhinitis
with a serine protease inhibitor and/or an acute phase reactant, e.g., C1 inhibitor (col. 2,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007