Appeal No. 2001-2168
Application No. 09/083,307
examiner therefore concludes that it would have been
obvious to remove the TNF receptor 1 and receptor 2
molecules in view of the known effect of these receptors on
the patient’s immune response.
Appellant does not challenge the examiner’s position
that it would have been obvious to remove the TNF receptor
1 and receptor 2 molecules for the reasons discussed above
and on page 7 of the answer. Appellant also concedes that
Chen teaches the art that the TNF receptors suppress the
patient’s ability to fight cancer (see page 9 of the main
brief). However, appellant is understood to argue in
substance (see page 9 of the main brief) that Lentz lacks a
teaching of a filter having a cutoff of 120,000 daltons,
with the result that the examiner’s proposed combination of
Lentz and Chen “is not the same as what appellant is
claiming” (main brief, page 9). This argument does not
challenge the examiner’s position on obviousness as
discussed supra. We are therefore satisfied that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter claim 7 in light of the
reasons discussed above as well as our findings regarding
the Lentz patent.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007