Appeal No. 1998-0529
Application No. 07/961,076
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Gokhale, Wong, Ichikawa (I) and Ichikawa (II).
We reverse.
Background
The applicants describe the presently claimed invention at pages 1-2 of the
specification as providing a method of producing a fucosylated carbohydrate in a single
reaction mixture comprising the steps of using a fucosyltransferase to form an O-glycosidic
bond between a nucleoside 5'-diphospho-fucose and an available hydroxyl group of a
carbohydrate acceptor molecule to yield a fucosylated carbohydrate and a nucleoside 5'-
diphosphate wherein the nucleoside 5'-diphosphate is recycled in situ with fucose to form
the corresponding nucleoside 5'-diphospho-fucose.
Discussion
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
It is well-established that before a conclusion of obviousness may be made based
on a combination of references, there must have been a reason, suggestion, or motivation
to lead an inventor to combine those references. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes
Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation
omitted). Moreover, the prior art must also establish that one would have had a
reasonable expectation of achieving the present invention, i.e., a reasonable expectation
of success. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007