Ex parte MCCARTY - Page 5




              Appeal No. 1997-2830                                                                                           
              Application 08/440,362                                                                                         



              cholesterol, and the therapeutic function of alleviating the symptoms of maturity-onset                        
              diabetes.   Boynton, column 5, lines 44-50.                                                                    
                      While we agree with the examiner that Boynton establishes evidence of the                              
              application of chromic tripicolinate to reduce hyperglycemia and stabilize the level of                        

              serum glucose in a human, we find that the disclosure of Boynton is limited to                                 
              administration of chromic tripicolinate in a dosage range “corresponding to about 10 to                        
              about 500 micrograms” of chromium tripicolinate per day.  Boynton, column 4, lines 45-69.                      


                      In our view the examiner has failed to provide evidence which establishes a prima                      
              facie case of unpatentability based on obvious, as we do not find that the examiner has                        
              established that Boynton describes or suggests administration of a chromic tripicolinate                       
              dosage range of between about 1,000 and 10,000 micrograms per day of chromium as                               
              synthetic chromic tripicolinate to reduce hyperglycemia and stabilize the                                      

              level of serum glucose in humans.                                                                              

                      We find it unnecessary to reach the rebuttal evidence of                                               

              appellant as we find the examiner has not met the burden of                                                    

              setting forth a prima facie case of unpatentability based on                                                   

              obviousness.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d                                                    

              1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992),  In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2                                               
                                                             5                                                               





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007