Appeal No. 2001-1294 Page 2
Application No. 08/473,667
Leeson 4,965,074 Oct. 23, 1990
(Tu), William R. Kem, Worm Toxin in 3 HANDBOOK OF NATURAL TOXINS 353-60
(Anthony T. Tu ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, 1988)
Meyer et al. (Meyer), “Effects of Nucleus Basalis Lesions on the Muscarinic and
Nicotinic Modulation of [3H]Acetycholine Release in the Rat Cerebral Cortex,”
J. Neurochemistry, Vol. 49, pp. 1758-62 (1987)
Kem et al. (Kem), “Differential Actions of Anabaseine and its 3 DMAB Adduct
Upon Brain and Neuromuscular Nicotinic Receptor,” Biosis Abstr., No. 42075229
(1991)
Swanson et al. (Swanson), Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Function Studied
with Synthetic(+)-Anatoxin-a and Derivatives in MARINE TOXINS ORIGIN,
STRUCTURE, AND MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY 107-17 (Sherwood Hall et al. eds.,
American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1990)
(Rawlins), BENTELY’S TEXTBOOK OF PHARMACEUTICS 16 (E. A. Rawlins ed.,
8th ed., Bailliere Tindall, London 1978)
(Remington), REMINGTON’S PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, 1691-92 (A. Oslo
ed., 17th ed., Mack, Easton PA 1985)
GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 9 and 25-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence
of obviousness the examiner relies on the combination of Tu, Meyer, Kem1,
Remington, Rawlins and/or Swanson and Leeson.2
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
1 According to the examiner (Answer, page 6), “the Kem (1991) reference … [was] published after
the very first filing date….” Therefore, Kem appears to have been improperly applied in the
examiner’s rejection. Nevertheless, the examiner finds that Kem was merely cumulative to the
teachings of Meyer. (Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 6-7). Accordingly we will not consider
Kem in our deliberations.
2 We recognize that in the Final Office Action the examiner set forth three separate rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For administrative convenience we have consolidated all three rejections
into one ground of rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007