Ex Parte OLWEUS et al - Page 8




              Appeal No. 1997-2319                                                                                     
              Application No. 08/147,707                                                                               
                     We disagree.  As set forth in In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55 USPQ2d                     
              1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000):                                                                             
                     A critical step in analyzing the patentability of claims pursuant to section                      
                     103(a) is casting the mind back to the time of invention, to consider the                         
                     thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only by the prior art                        
                     references and the then-accepted wisdom in the field. [] Close adherence                          
                     to this methodology is especially important in cases where the very ease                          
                     with which the invention can be understood may prompt one “to fall victim                         
                     to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the                       
                     invention taught is used against its teacher.” []                                                 
                     [T]o establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements                                 
                     disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation, suggestion or                          
                     teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was                          
                     made by the applicant.  [citations omitted]                                                       
                     In other words, “there still must be evidence that ‘a skilled artisan, . . . with no              
              knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art                   
              references for combination in the manner claimed.’”  Ecolochem Inc. v. Southern                          
              California Edison, 227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1075-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000).                        
                     Admittedly, this is a close case.  McClanahan explicitly suggests that induction of               
              IL-7R mRNA “may be evidence of lymphoid lineage commitment” in the mouse (page                           
              2912), but we note that the suggestion is tempered somewhat by the acknowledgment                        
              that it is not known whether “all of the receptor mRNAs expressed in [embryonic stem]                    
              cells lead to the production of functional proteins, or if these molecules are expressed                 
              on the surface” (page 2913).  Terstappen’s method, on the other hand, successfully                       
              and unambiguously identifies human CD34+, CD38+ cells as lymphoid-committed using                        
              CD10 as a marker of lineage commitment.  All things considered, we do not find                           

                                                          8                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007