Appeal No. 1996-2209
Application No. 08/031,346
also appears to indicate that ozonated or irradiated blood and blood component suspensions
are known in the prior art for the treatment of hyperimmune and autoimmune conditions. For
example, Edelson evidences methods and systems for externally treating blood components
with photoactive and chemical agents for the purpose of reducing lymphocyte populations in
blood which may be found in conditions such as lymphocytic anemia, allergies, thyroiditis,
hemolytic and pernicious anemias and collagen vascular diseases. Column 1, lines 13-45.
While the nature of the art lacks a degree of predictability, we find the disclosure, through its
examples, provides sufficient guidance to those of ordinary skill in the art to practice the
claimed process without undue experimentation. In view of the above, the rejection of the
claims for lack of enablement is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as unpatentable for lack of utility. It
is the examiner’s position that the evidence of record is insufficient to support claims of
treatment of conditions such as arthritis, asthma, bronchitis and neurodermatitis. Answer,
page 7.
In the present case, the appellant claims a process for the production of a germicidally
treated suspension and need only show one credible utility for such process. Raytheon Co. v.
Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 958, 220 USPQ 592, 598 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Treatise:
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007