Appeal No. 1996-2568
Application No. 08/071,304
page 431 that “[n]ot all gangliosides have similar inhibitory effects. The ones with the
simplest oligosaccharide units (GM4 and GM3) have no inhibitory effect . . .” At page 2
of the Reply Brief, appellant characterizes the statement at page 431 of Yates as “a
definite and succinct teaching away from Appellant’s invention.” We note that Yates
does not teach or suggest a composition consisting essentially of an
immunosuppressive concentration of a ganglioside, wherein said ganglioside is G ;
M4
and a physiologically acceptable carrier for said ganglioside, as require by claim 11.
We also note that Yates does not teach or suggest a method for suppressing an
immune response in an animal which comprises administering to the animal an
immunosuppressively effective amount of a ganglioside where said ganglioside is G ,
M4
as require by claim 1.
At page 11 of the Brief, appellant states “[c]learly a person of ordinary skill would
not be motivated by these disclosures, demonstrating the apparent inactivity of G , to
M4
combine G with a physiologically acceptable carrier in order to form a composition
M4
for suppressing an immune response.” We agree with appellant. It is well established
that before a conclusion of obviousness may be made based on a combination of
references, there must have been a reason, suggestion or motivation to lead an
inventor to combine those references. Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007