Appeal No. 1997-3275
Application No. 07/963,329
stimulators when used alone." To the extent the Leschey would be regarded as relevant to
the presently claimed invention, this statement would appear to teach away from the use of
IGF-1 in the treatment of retinal related disorders. However, more relevant is the fact that
Leschey is limited to describing the effect of IGF-1 on the retinal pigment epithelium. As
evidenced by Figure 20-17, page 556 of Leeson, the retinal pigment epithelium is a
distinctly different layer of cells in relation to the rods and cones which make up the
photoreceptors of the eye. (See the description which accompanies the figure.).
Yorek is even more remote from the claimed invention. At best it can be said to
describe the effect of IGF-I in stimulating of amino acid (glycine) uptake in retinoblastoma
cells. Yorek provides no information which would reasonably suggest the use of IGF-I for
enhancing the survival rate of photoreceptors in danger of dying.
Thus, we conclude that the combination of Lewis, whether under the doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting or 35 U.S.C. § 103, with Ocrant, Leschey, Yorek, and
Fingl, fail to provide the evidence which would reasonably have led one of ordinary skill in
this art to arrive at the presently claimed invention. Therefore, we reverse both rejections.
Summary
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed. The
rejections of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings
of Fryklund, Sara, Fellows, Hansson, Ocrant, Leeson, and Fingl or, alternatively, over the
combined teachings of Lewis, Ocrant, Leschey, Yorek, and Fingl are reversed. The
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007