Appeal No. 2001-2168
Application No. 09/083,307
The well-known benefits of using radiation to treat
cancer together with the common knowledge of utilizing
radiation with other types of treatment would have provided
ample motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to
supplement Lentz’ blood-filtering treatment of cancer with
radiation to kill residual cancer cells not successfully
inhibited by Lentz’ treatment.
Nowhere in appellant’s briefs do we find any argument
expressly disputing the examiner’s position that it would
have been obvious to supplement Lentz’ treatment with a
radiation treatment. Indeed, the only argument expressly
referring to the group of claims containing claim 16 is
found on page 11 of appellant’s main brief where it is
merely stated that the patentability of groups 1-4 of the
appealed claims “require [sic] a separate analysis.” That
assertion does not amount to an argument that claim 16 is
patentable over the prior art separately of claim 9.
For the foregoing reasons we are satisfied that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter claim 16.
According to the section in appellant’s main brief
concerning the grouping of claims (see page 4), claims 7
and 21 have been grouped together by appellant for
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007