Appeal No. 2000-0894
Application No. 08/437,884
The examiner has pointed to nothing in the remaining references that
would have led those skilled in the art to make the required combination. We
have reviewed the cited references but we find nothing in them that would have
suggested the claimed invention to those of ordinary skill in the art. Means
teaches protein/NO conjugates that provide the same therapeutic effect as the
known antihypertensive drug sodium nitroprusside (SNP), but in a form that does
not result in toxic degradation products that limit the use of SNP. See column 1,
line 65 to column 2, line 33. The proteins in Means’ protein/NO conjugates are
glutathione and serum albumin. See column 1, lines 1-15. Loscalzo teaches S-
nitrosothiol derivatives of ACE (angiotensin converting enzyme) inhibitors, but the
ACE inhibitors are relatively small chemical compounds, not peptides or proteins.
The examiner has not adequately explained how Means or Loscalzo would have
motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to conjugate NO to an
immunoglobulin.
Thus, we conclude that the cited references, do not provide the requisite
motivation to combine a nitrogen monoxide moiety with an immunoglobulin.
“Combining prior art references without evidence of such a suggestion, teaching,
or motivation simply takes the inventor’s disclosure as a blueprint for piecing
together the prior art to defeat patentability—the essence of hindsight.” In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citations omitted).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007