Appeal No. 2001-1730 Page 6
Application No. 08/603,182
would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing an
immunogenic hirudin polymer by modifying ‘443 with the teachings of Maurer and
Man.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 22-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over ‘443 in view of Maurer and Man
II. SCHLEAPPI IN VIEW OF MAURER AND MAN:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 7 bridging 8), Schlaeppi teach
that conjugating hirudin to a carrier protein increases its immunogenicity. The
examiner recognizes (id.), however, that Schlaeppi does not teach the blocking
step used in ‘443. To make up for this deficiency, the examiner relies on Maurer
and Man as set forth above. As we understand the examiner’s position,
Schlaeppi differs from ‘443 only in the omission of the optional step of protecting
the hirudin amino groups. This difference, however, does not make up for the
deficiencies set forth above. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we
reverse the rejection of claims 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schlaeppi in view of Maurer and Man
III. SPINNER IN VIEW OF MAURER AND MAN:
Spinner like ‘443 and Schlaeppi teach that a hirudin preparation is
somewhat immunogenic (Answer, page 8). That hirudin is immunogenic,
however, is not the issue. Instead, the issue is whether it would have been prima
facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to modify the teachings of Spinner with those of Maurer and Man to
produce an immunogenic hirudin polymer. For the reasons set forth above, it is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007