Appeal No. 1997-2639
Application No. 08/237,129
scutallatus) or, in particular, $ taipoxin from such venom, possesses or is capable of acting
as a growth factor or nerve growth factor. Importantly, Fohlman indicates that, contrary to
the argument of the examiner, not all elapid venoms are the same. In particular, Fohlman
states the Taipan snake venom “is strongly neurotoxic and the clinical syndrome
resembles severe myasthenia gravis [4]. Tiger snake ... antivenin gives very little
protection, which is rather remarkable, since the latter antivenin is effective against most
other Australian snakes and in fact against elapid venoms in general [5].” Fohlman, page
457, column 2.
Nor do we find that the cited references disclose an ointment comprising the
specifically claimed cell growth factor as set forth in claims 23 and 24. Thus, on the record
before us, we do not find the examiner has presented the evidence necessary to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness, both suggesting the claimed subject matter and
revealing a reasonable expectation of success to one reasonably skilled in the art. The
rejection of the claims 14-20, 23 and 24 for obviousness of the claimed invention is
reversed. The rejection of claims 21 and 22 is vacated in view of the new grounds of
rejection set forth below.
New grounds of rejection - 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007