Appeal No. 1997-2512 Application No. 08/118,905 not result in the subject matter of independent claim 12. For these reasons, we hold that the subject matter of dependent claims 14 and 15 would not have been prima facie obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Frenkel and Whittaker. We also agree with the appellants that Cassou likewise does not remedy the deficiencies of Frenkel. Cassou discloses: “The invention relates to a tube, known as a straw, for cryogenically preserving biological samples, in particular viral cultures, formed by a length of tubular envelope made of biologically neutral, substantially transparent polymer material, provided with a seal at each of its two ends and including, in the vicinity of a first end, a sliding stopper comprising an aqueous gel between two pads made of porous elastic material.” See column 1, lines 7-14. The appellants have acknowledged that Cassou “teaches how to make a tube of the type disclosed in the application.” Page 3, Appeal Brief. Further, at column 6, lines 63-68, Cassou teaches as follows: “It will be appreciated, of course, that, in order to recover the biological sample for use, the ends 11 and 12 are sectioned flush with the underformed zones that are beyond the seals, and that the sample is expelled by pushing the sliding stopper mechanically or pneumatically.” However, there is no disclosure or teaching in Cassou regarding the administration of a biological or pharmaceutical material as in the appellants’ claimed invention or in Frenkel. Rather, Cassou is concerned with the cryogenic preservation of biological samples, notably viral cultures. See, e.g., column 4, lines 31-35 and the abstract. Cryogenic preservation is different from, and would not have suggested the administration 13Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007