Appeal No. 1997-3600
Application No. 08/300,447
concentration of two reactants[,] … methods of determining the rate order of a given
reaction[,] … curves of concentration vs time[, and that] reaction half-time is defined
and discussed.”
From this evidence the examiner concludes (Answer, page 6):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to assay for activity by determination
of half-life in the method of … [Wun] because Zeffren shows half life
determination is a standard technique in this art and would have the
expected result. Further, Zeffren shows second order rate reactions
and calculations based upon such calculations are also known for the
same function as presently claimed.
In response, appellants argue that Wun teach placental plasminogen
activator inhibitor, not PAI-1. Appellants argue (Brief, page 8) that Wun teaches that
“there are at least three distinct types of PA inhibitors (page 3646, right column, first
full paragraph): 1) protease nexin originally found in human foreskin fibroblast; 2)
endothelial cell type PA inhibitor originally found in bovine aortic endothelial cell; and
3) placental type PA inhibitor. 5” Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the
examiner’s argument (Answer, page 10) that “claim 21 [sic 41] is directed to PAI-1
and does not specify any source or group.”
4 Paper No. 21, mailed October 29, 1996.
5 Consistent with the teachings of the Wun reference, we note that United States
Patent No. 5,112,955, issued May 12, 1992 (two years prior to the filing of the
instant application) discloses (column 1, lines 29-32) that several plasminogen
activotor “inhibitors have been recognized: endothelial cell type PA inhibitor (PAI-1),
placental type PA inhibitor (PAI-2), urinary PA iinhibitor (PAI-3) and protease nexin.”
We note that a copy of this patent was present in the administrative file. However, it
does not appear that this reference was made of record in the administrative file, or
that a copy of this reference was made available to appellants. Accordingly, we
attached a copy of this patent to our decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007