Ex parte HERSHENSON - Page 6

                 Appeal No. 1997-2133                                                                                                                
                 Application 08/172,507                                                                                                              

                 but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw                                           
                 therefrom.  In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).   The cited                                              
                 references all generally deal with the stabilization of lyophilized proteins.                                                       
                          We assume,  arguendo, that a prima facie case of obviousness has been presented                                            
                 by the examiner, and thus the burden shifts to appellant to rebut that prima facie case.  Such                                      
                 rebuttal or argument can consist of any other argument  or presentation of evidence that is                                         
                 pertinent.  In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93,  16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en                                          
                 banc),  cert. denied,  500 U.S. 904 (1991).  Accordingly, we carefully evaluate the objective                                       
                 evidence of nonobviousness presented by the appellant.                                                                              
                          Objective evidence of non-obvious presented by appellant includes teachings away in                                        
                 the prior art references  from the claimed invention.  These teachings away are urged to rebut                                      
                 any prima facie case of obviousness presented by the examiner.                                                                      
                          Appellant’s point is well taken that a prior art reference must be considered in its                                       
                 entirety, i.e. as a whole including portions which would lead away from the claimed invention.                                      
                  W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ                                                      
                 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  Appellant submits, for example, that taking a careful look at Lee                                            
                 indicates that formulations containing histidine showed no biological activity and thus teach                                       
                 away from the claimed invention.  Lee, Table IV, page 5.  Brief, pages 16-17.   It is also                                          
                 presented that Audhya teaches away from the use of sugars such as sucrose and mannitol,                                             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007