Appeal No. 1999-1155
Application No. 08/241,253
Obviousness
According to the examiner, Parker describes “tri-aza macrocycles, their metal
complexes . . . and their conjugates with proteins and other molecules, . . . useful in
diagnosis and therapy; and substituents CO2H, SO3H and PO3H2 among others,” but
“does not teach tetra-aza macrocycles.” Tweedle, on the other hand, describes “tetra-
aza macrocycles . . . , their metal complexes as Gd . . . ; use in imaging as contrast
agents . . . ; use in radio therapy; and conjugating with biomolecules as antibodies.”
Examiner’s Answer, pages 7 and 8.
With respect to those claims limited to monomeric or multimeric chelating
compounds wherein the chelating moiety is a tetraazacyclododecane, e.g., claim 1, the
examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious, . . . in view of the commonality
of properties and structure (macrocycles with 3 or more nitrogens) to substitute Parker’s
triaza macrocycle with Tweedle’s tetra aza macrocycle, and obtain instant compounds,”
because
(1) both are macrocycles with 3 or more nitrogens.
(2) both complex with metals as Gd.
(3) both are used in imaging; which is in turn dependent on ‘relaxivities’.
Id., at page 8.
If we understand the examiner’s rationale, it is that Parker’s tri-azacyclo and
Tweedle’s tetra-azacyclo compounds are essentially interchangeable imaging agents
because of their “commonality of properties and structure;” thus, it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the substituents on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007