Appeal No. 2001-1499 Page 10
Application No. 08/957,654
Gillis in view of Rao further in view of Clark or Glover:
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 5 and 6) the combination of
Gillis in view of Rao is applied as it was against claim 1-3, 7 and 8 above. The
examiner relies on Clark (Answer, page 5) to address the limitations of claims 5
and 9 drawn to transgenic anlpha-1-antitrypsin. In addition, the examiner relies
on Glover (Answer, page 6) to address the limitation of claim 6 which further
limits claim 1, by requiring the alpha-1-antitrypsin to inhibit human neutrophil
elastase activity.
Neither Clark nor Glover, however, make up for the deficiencies in the
combination of Gillis in view of Rao, discussed supra. Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection of claims 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Gillis in view of Rao and further in view of Clark; and we reverse the
rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gillis in
view of Rao and further in view of Glover.
Lezdey in view of Clark:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 6), Lezdey “teaches topical
compositions comprising alpha-1-antitrypsin analogs for use in treatment of
inflammatory skin conditions such as burns and atopic dermatitis.” However, as
discussed supra, the examiner has not established that the claimed
therapeutically effective amount taught by Lezdey corresponds to the claimed
therapeutically effective amount. Clark, who is relied upon to teach the
transgenic production of AAT fails to make up for the deficiency in Lezdey.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007