Appeal No. 2001-0942 Page 10
Application No. 08/473,960
(see pp. 7-8) nor the Final Rejection provide a grounds of the rejection. All they give
are examiner’s responses to appellants’ arguments. Furthermore, we have been
provided only an abstract of the primary reference Samuni. The entire underlying
document should have been provided.4 Lastly, we have reviewed the Examiner’s
Answer and there is not a single mention of Bose and the admitted prior art. They have
been completely ignored, notwithstanding that they are included as prior art references
in the rejection. This raises the question of whether examiner has decided to rely solely
on Samuni and the Nilsson references. Be that as it may, rather than remanding the
application for clarification, we will review the merits of the rejection. The record is
sufficiently complete and the issues adequately addressed to render a decision on the
appeal.
According to the examiner (see Paper No. 23),
Samuni teaches OXANO, one of the claimed nitroxides, mimics superoxide dismutase,
which substance scavenges free radicals, and therefore suggests OXANO is effective
against free radicals. Samuni also discloses that either ionizing radiation or xanthine
oxidase/xanthine are means for generating the free radicals.
Nilsson (I or II) shows OXANO inhibits lipid peroxidation by free radicals in an organism,
4 “Citation of an abstract without citation and reliance on the underlying scientific document itself is
generally inappropriate where both the abstract and the underlying document are prior art.” See Ex parte
Jones, 62 USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2001) (unpublished).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007