Appeal No. 1999-1281
Application No. 08/712,249
further reference appellants’ Brief2 and appellants’ Reply Brief3 for the appellants’
arguments in favor of patentability.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 4) Eisenhardt “disclose that lithium
salts of heparin are useful as anticoagulants” and that the lithium salt of heparin
maybe used with other cations, however, Eisenhardt “do not state that the additional
cation may be zinc, barium, or copper.” The examiner finds (Answer, page 5) that
Celsus “teaches that heparin zinc may also be used as an anticoagulant [and] …
also indicates that the prior art had recognized that the use of heparin lithium as an
anticoagulant lead [sic] to inaccurate values for blood calcium ion levels because
Ca2+ binds to heparin more strongly than does Li+.” The examiner further finds that
“[a]ccording to … [Celsus] it was also known in the art that Zn2+ has greater affinity
for heparin than Ca2+.”
The examiner concludes (Answer, page 5) that since the art recognized that
Ca2+ binds heparin more strongly than Li+, leading to inaccurate values for blood
calcium ion levels, and Zn2+ has greater affinity for heparin than Ca2+, “[i]t would
have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
… to provide an anticoagulant composition comprising a mixture of heparin salts
which included lithium and heavy metal cations“ [emphasis added].
2 Paper No. 23, received November 17, 1997.
3 Paper No. 25, received March 26, 1998.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007