Appeal No. 1997-0661
Application No. 08/257,866
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellants’ specification and claims, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the
examiner’s Answer3 for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection. We
further reference appellants’ Brief4, and appellants’ Reply Brief5 for the appellants’
arguments in favor of patentability.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness rests on
the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
The examiner states (Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 3-4) that “Soloviev
disclose that liposomes made of egg phosphatidylcholine had a relaxing effect on
the thoracic aortas of spontaneously hypertensive rats.” The examiner therefore
concludes that:
To administer the liposomes for the treatment of hypertension would
have been obvious from the disclosure of Soloviev et al. as the
liposomes had a relaxing effect on the aortic smooth muscle. Thus by
relaxing blood vessels the pressure in the blood vessel would go
down as the diameter of the vessel increased. Thus a substance
known to relax blood vessels would logically be presumed to be useful
in the treatment of hypertension.
3 Paper No. 16, mailed April 24, 1996.
4 Paper No. 15, received March 6, 1996.
5 Paper No. 17, received June 27, 1996.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007