Appeal No. 1997-1705
Application 08/211,352
as little as a fraction of a second.5
As for Example 2, appellant argues that it was unexpected
that injection of intermuscular botulinum toxin A during the
growth period of the hereditary spastic mouse allowed normal
longitudinal muscle growth to take place (reply brief, page
6). This argument is not persuasive for the reasons given
regarding Case Study 1 and also because appellant has not
established that results for mice are indicative of results
for a human. 6
For the above reasons we conclude, based upon the
preponderance of the evidence, that the method recited in
appellant’s claim 17 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Consequently, we affirm the rejection under this
5 See In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769,
778 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206
USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
6 When we give appellant’s claim 17 its broadest
reasonable interpretation in view of the specification and the
prior art, see In re Kroekel, 504 F.2d 1143, 1146, 183 USPQ
610, 612 (CCPA 1974); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169
USPQ 236, 238-39 (CCPA 1971), we conclude that “juvenile
patients” refers to human juvenile patients.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007