Appeal No. 2001-1485
Application No. 08/532,211
reduction in that claimed increase by the incubation step to a
point where the solution is suitable for intravenous use. The
appellant argues that there is no motivation to require an
incubation step (b) as the increase in ACA caused by using the
solvent-detergent method was unexpected. (Appeal Brief, page 4,
lines 8-10). The examiner has admitted that the prior art is
silent on this claimed increase in ACA.
It is clear to us that the problems of viral presence in
antibody solutions and the problems of reducing ACA to an
acceptable level were well known, as discussed in the cited
references. The solvent-detergent method of Neurath inactivates
viruses, and the Tenold ACA reduction process reduces ACA. The
appellant has admitted that the combination of the Neurath and
Tenold procedures “may have been an obvious step” (Appeal Brief,
page 4, lines 4-5) but that such combination “would only result in
step (a)” (Id., page 4, lines 6-7).
The appellant has discovered that Neurath’s process results
in elevated ACA levels (Specification, page 17, last 2 lines).
Although the ACA increase was unrecognized, Neurath alone
therefore inherently meets step (a) of the process. Neurath also
suggests “further processing” (column 9, lines 19-24). The
question then presented is whether one of ordinary skill in the
art would be taught to follow with the Tenold process and whether
the instantly claimed results would be obtained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007