Ex parte STROM et al. - Page 5


                Appeal No.  2000-0839                                                                         
                Application No. 08/355,502                                                                    
                appellants’ argument is no longer relied on by the examiner.  As set forth In re              
                Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 UPSQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976):                                 
                             When prima facie obviousness is established and evidence is                      
                      submitted in rebuttal, the decision-maker must start over.  … An                        
                      earlier decision should not, as it was here, be considered as set in                    
                      concrete, and applicant's rebuttal evidence then be evaluated only on                   
                      its knockdown ability.  Analytical fixation on an earlier decision can                  
                      tend to provide that decision with an undeservedly broadened                            
                      umbrella effect.  Prima facie obviousness is a legal conclusion, not a                  
                      fact.  Facts established by rebuttal evidence must be evaluated along                   
                      with the facts on which the earlier conclusion was reached, not against                 
                      the conclusion itself.  … [A] final finding of obviousness may of course                
                      be reached, but such finding will rest upon evaluation of all facts in                  
                      evidence, uninfluenced by any earlier conclusion reached by an earlier                  
                      board upon a different record.                                                          
                      To the extent that the examiner relies on some additional teaching in the               
                ‘964 patent to overcome the teaching away in Capon II, the examiner fails to                  
                elucidate this additional teaching on this record.  We remind the examiner that in            
                order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, there must be both, a                   
                suggestion or motivation to modify the references or combine reference teachings,             
                and a reasonable expectation of success.  In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20                  
                USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  While it may be “obvious to try” the general             
                approach set forth in the ‘964 patent, to produce an IL-10/Fc fusion; obvious to try is       
                not the standard of obviousness.  In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d             
                1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  In our opinion, based on the evidence of record in this         
                application, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable            
                expectation of success in obtaining a IL-10/Fc fusion wherein both ends retain their          
                biological activity.                                                                          



                                                      5                                                       



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007