Appeal No. 2001-0400
Application No. 08/751,624
concentration of 10 然 for viral inactivation. The examiner cites Table 3 of
Heinmets as showing practice of the disclosed method with dye concentrations
as low as 0.5 然, but we agree with Appellants that Table 3 would have led away
from using dye concentrations of less than 2 然. Table 3 shows that toluidine
blue O at a concentration of 2.5 然 to 10 然 effectively i nactivated Eastern
equine encephalomyelitis virus in human plasma, but concentrations of 0.5 然,
0.7 然, and 1.0 然 did not. See Heinmets, page 8. Thus, Heinmets would have
not have led those skilled in the art to modify the disclosed process in the
manner recited in the instant claims.
The examiner provides no other evidence or reasoning that would have
led those skilled in the art to modify the method disclosed by Heinmets by
reducing the dye concentration to 0.5 然 to 2 然. Since the relied-on reference
does not provide motivation to modify the known process as required by the
claims, the prior art does not support a prima facie case of obviousness. The
rejection is reversed.
3. The obviousness rejection of claim 16
The examiner rejected claim 16 as obvious in view of the combined
disclosures of Heinmets, either of Sugiyama or Hodgson, and the Bio-Rad
catalog. Claim 16 is directed to a method for removing a phenothiazine dye from
a blood product using a silica gel, polystyrene-divinylbenzene, or an acrylic ester
polymer as an adsorbing agent.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007