Ex Parte MITCHELL et al - Page 6




              Appeal No.  2001-0942                                                        Page 6                       
              Application No.  08/473,960                                                                               

              formation of free radicals by ionizing radiation.  General Foods Corp. v.                                 
              Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278-79, 23 USPQ2d 1839, 1844                               
              (Fed. Cir. 1992).                                                                                         
                     After careful review of examiner's position2, we conclude that examiner has                        
              demonstrated that instant claim 17 is an obvious variation of Mitchell patent claim 13.                   
                     With regard to the difference between administering an oxidized form of the                        
              metal-independent nitroxide or oxazolidine (as in Mitchell) and administering one of the                  
              metal-independent nitroxide or oxazolidine as instantly claimed, examiner (Examiner’s                     
              Answer, p. 5) argues that the compounds described in Mitchell claim 13 encompass                          
              what is claimed.  Appellants (Brief, p. 6) argue that Mitchell’s claim is generic and fails               
              to teach the particular formulas for the metal-independent nitroxide and oxazolidine that                 
              are illustrated in instant claim 17.  Accordingly, as to the compounds to be                              
              administered, both parties agree that Mitchell claim 13 is broader in scope than that of                  
              instant claim 17.  The dispute appears to be whether one of ordinary skill reading the                    
              Mitchell claim would have selected the compounds claimed to render prima facie                            




                                                                                                                        
              2 The Examiner’s Answer, p. 4, states, in its entirety, “[a]lthough the conflicting claims are not identical,
              they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to methods overlapping in scope.” 
              Examiner goes further in the Final Rejection (Paper no. 23, p. 3):  “It would have been obvious to one of 
              ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of patented claims 12-13, selecting ionizing radiation as the
              source of oxidative stress as per claim 13.  One would have been motivated to do so because the claim     
              clearly encompasses this alternative within the broader method. Upon making this selection, and selecting 
              one or more of the metal-independent nitroxides, one would arrive at the method of the instant claims.”   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007