Appeal No. 1999-2141
Application No. 08/657,164
Claims 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable for obviousness
over Haast ‘762 and ’902 in view of Tyler and Bougis.
The examiner finds that Haast ‘762 and ’902 evidence the preparation of
presynaptic neurotoxin from viperid snake venom and its use for the treatment of
neurological disorders. Haast ‘762 suggests that presynaptic neurotoxins from taipoxin
may also be used for the treatment of neurological disorders. The Haast patents generally
describe the centrifugation and separation of a supernatant from elapid or viperid snake
venoms, and loading of supernatant onto an ion exchange column to fractionate the
supernatant in the presence of sodium acetate, sodium chloride and Thimerosol. Haast
‘762, column 9, lines 28-67. The Haast patents are indicated by the examiner to lack a
disclosure of a particular buffer and pH for such fractionation of viperid venom. Answer,
page 5. Tyler and Bougis, are described above.
The examiner concludes that “it would have also been obvious that in following
these teachings, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious and the
separation of non-toxic and toxic parts would have also been achieved by following HPLC
techniques.” Answer, page 6. The examiner finds the steps of adding a saline buffer to
the venom before centrifuging to obtain a supernatant to apply to HPLC column and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007