Appeal No. 2001-0550
Application No. 09/030,792
The dispositive issue with respect to the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 based on Spina is whether Spina discloses or
suggests the step of heating the enzyme solution prior to its
introduction into the lens. The examiner’s position with respect
to this claim limitation is set forth on page 6 of the answer and
reads as follows:
While Spina et al[.] does not teach that the solution
is heated, the examiner, having worked in several
laboratories personally, considers it inherent or
obvious that the solution is heated prior to placing it
in the eye for several reasons. Note that in handling
the enzymes (column 7[,] lines 30-31) the enzyme
aliquot is thawed prior to use. Trypsin as well as the
reaction mixtures are typically stored in refrigerators
or on ice since these specialized proteins are easy
degraded near room temperature either by
autodegradation or by other proteases which degrade the
enzyme causing it to loose it’s catalytic activity.
Additionally, it is unlikely that the physician would
directly inject a patient[‘]s eye with a solution that
is ice cold for obvious reasons of patient comfort.
But more importantly, enzymes such as trypsin function
most optimally at temperatures above room temperature.
This is common knowledge to those familiar with
enzymes. Also, see the notes at the bottom of column
5 of Spina in which an in vitro experiment was performed at
37°C (i.e[,] body temperature 98.6°). Thus the examiner
considers it inherent and/or obvious to provided [sic] a
chilled enzyme solution that is heated before introduction
into the eye. Both the heat and the enzyme will both help
to liquefy the cataract lens and hence, each and every
limitation of the claim is taught.
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007