Ex parte LILLEHOJ et al. - Page 5




              Appeal No. 1999-1396                                                                                            
              Application No. 08/524,668                                                                                      
                      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, suggestion or teaching of the                             
                      desirability of making the specific combination that was made by the                                    
                      applicant.  [citations omitted]                                                                         
                      In other words, “there still must be evidence that ‘a skilled artisan, . . . with no                    
              knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art                          
              references for combination in the manner claimed.’”  Ecolochem Inc. v. Southern California                      
              Edison, 227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1075-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000).                                          
                      At best, the statement of the rejection establishes that individual parts of the                        
              claimed invention were known in the prior art, i.e., E. acervulina was known to be                              
              immunogenic, and a protocol for making chicken monoclonal antibodies was known.  It                             
              may well be, as asserted by the examiner, that a person skilled in the art would have                           
              expected a chicken monoclonal antibody raised against the polypeptides on Murray’s                              
              Western blot to be “specific to a[n] immunodominant antigen.”  Nevertheless, the examiner                       
              has not pointed to any evidence of a suggestion to make a chicken antibody specific for                         
              Eimeria acervulina in the first place, let alone one specific for an antigen “located on the                    
              conoid of the anterior tip of Eimeria acervulina sporozoites,” as required by the claims.                       


                                                              5                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007