Ex Parte RANGANATHAN et al - Page 6




              Appeal No. 1999-1155                                                                                        
              Application No. 08/241,253                                                                                  
              Tweedle’s core tetraazacyclododecanes with certain of the substituents from Parker’s                        
              triazacyclononanes to arrive at the presently claimed tetraazacyclododecanes.                               
                     We do not agree.  In our view, it is somewhat misleading to characterize the                         
              Parker and Tweedle references as describing “macrocycles with 3 or more nitrogens.”                         
              Parker describes triazacyclononanes with three nitrogens, while Tweedle describes                           
              tetraazacyclododecanes with four.  The two types of compounds are mutually exclusive,                       
              and thus, do not share “commonality of . . . structure.”  Moreover, the only “commonality                   
              of propert[y]” identified by the examiner is the ability of both tri-aza and tetra-azacyclo                 
              compounds to bind gadolinium (Gd).  Finally, Parker describes metal complexes of tri-                       
              azacyclo compounds suitable for X-ray and radionuclide imaging, neither of which                            
              depends on relaxivity for effectiveness.                                                                    
                     As set forth in In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316                           
              (Fed. Cir. 2000):                                                                                           
                     A critical step in analyzing the patentability of claims pursuant to section                         
                     103(a) is casting the mind back to the time of invention, to consider the                            
                     thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only by the prior art                           
                     references and the then-accepted wisdom in the field. [] Close adherence                             
                     to this methodology is especially important in cases where the very ease                             
                     with which the invention can be understood may prompt one “to fall victim                            
                     to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the                          
                     invention taught is used against its teacher.” []                                                    
                     Most if not all inventions arise from a combination of old elements. []                              
                     Thus, every element of a claimed invention may often be found in the                                 
                     prior art. [] However, identification in the prior art of each individual part                       
                     claimed is insufficient to defeat patentability of the whole claimed                                 
                     invention. [] Rather, to establish obviousness based on a combination of                             
                     the elements disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation,                              

                                                            6                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007