Appeal No. 1997-0100
Application 08/167,051
Henke I, Henke II, Stewart I, Stewart II and Hock disclose bradykinin antagonists
differing from certain of the claimed peptides in the position corresponding to amino acid
position eight (Phe) of native bradykinin. For example, many of Henke’s peptides have
4
hydroxyproline at position eight, while Hock’s antagonist, Hoe 140, has Oic at that
position; claims 5 through 17, 21, 22 and 41, on the other hand, require a hydroxyproline
ether or a thioalkyl ether at position eight.
According to the examiner, Patchett teaches that “the heterocycles hydroxyproline
or hydroxyproline ether or thioether derivative or Oic are functionally equivalent,” while
Krapcho teaches that “proline substituted derivatives incorporating as the substituents an
alkyl or aryl or alkoxy or aryloxy or alkylthio or arylthio group are more potent in vitro.”
Examiner’s Answer, page 5.
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 & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes
Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation
omitted).
The examiner believes that “it would have been obvious . . . to replace the residue
hydroxyproline or Oic at position eight of the Henke or Hock . . . peptide sequence with a
4Oic is the abbreviation for cis-endo-octahydroindole-2-carbonyl.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007