Appeal No. 2001-0942 Page 4
Application No. 08/473,960
The claims stand or fall together (Brief, p. 4). Accordingly, we will focus on sole
independent claim 17.
The issue is whether claim 17 describes an obvious variation of Mitchell patent
claim 13. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). If so,
then the rejection would be proper and could only be overcome by filing a terminal
disclaimer. If not, then instant claim 17 would be patentably distinct from Mitchell
patent claim 13. In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
The crux of the inquiry lies in a comparison of Mitchell patent claim 13 and
instant claim 17. In re Borah, 354 F.2d 1009, 1017, 148 USPQ 213, 220 (CCPA 1966).
See Appendix.
When comparing the claims, we see that Mitchell patent claim 13 is directed to a
method of treating the effects of, for example, ionizing radiation, by administering either
an oxidized form of either a metal-independent nitroxide or an oxazolidine capable of
forming an oxazolidine-1-oxyl “to an organism or biological material susceptible to
oxidative stress” (see parent claim 12) “wherein the oxidative stress is due to the
formation of free radicals by … ionizing radiation” (claim 13).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007