Appeal No. 1997-1913
Application 08/238,149
In reaching our decision on this appeal we have given careful consideration to
appellants' specification and claims, and to the respective positions articulated by
appellants and by the examiner. We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 23, mailed
April 24, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection. For appellants'
arguments, we refer to the Brief (Paper No. 21, filed February 22, 1996) and the Reply
Brief (Paper No. 24, filed June 27, 1996). We note that in Paper No. 25, mailed July 17,
1996, the examiner acknowledged the Reply Brief and indicated that it had been entered.
Claims 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ? 103(a). As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Williams in combination with Taylor. We reverse.
BACKGROUND
Claim 23, the sole independent claim on appeal, is drawn to a method of reversing
age-related changes in heart muscle cells in a subject. According to page 8, lines 17-19,
of the specification, these changes include a decrease in phosphatidylcholine (PC) levels
and a concomitant increase in sphingomyelin (SM) and cholesterol levels. The method is
carried out by intravenous administration of a therapeutically effective amount of a
liposome which comprises PC, and which is substantially free of sphingomyelin.
Appellants state at page 8, lines 19-22, that the liposomes "are designed to promote
exchange of PC from liposomes to heart cell membrane, and exchange of SM from the
heart muscle to the liposomes." The PC employed has "an acyl chain composition which
is characteristic, at least with respect to transition temperature, of the acyl chain
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007