Appeal No. 2001-1907 Page 8
Application No. 08/694,315
activated immunoglobulin, and Takashi is cited for teaching histamine activated
immunoglobulin.
According to the rejection, McMichael teaches that histamine activated
immunoglobulin is useful in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. In addition,
McMichael is cited for teaching that:
the positive therapeutic results occur when the histamine and
immunoglobulin are administered together but not when
administered individually and that this result indicates a type of
synergistic, joint activity or formation of a histamine/immunoglobulin
complex which acts as a regulatory molecule (see column 5, lines
18-27 and column 7, lines 48-57, in particular). McMichael further
teaches that essentially minute quantities within the range of 8.8 x
10-6 to about 45.5 x 10-3 mg of histamine is an effective dose of
histamine . . . .
Examiner’s Answer, page 7.
The examiner acknowledges that “[t]he claimed invention differs from the
prior art teachings only by the removal of histamine from the . . . histamine-
immunoglobulin mixture by dialysis or gel filtration.” Id. Wood is then cited for
teaching the separation of proteins by dialysis or gel filtration based on their size.
The rejection concludes:
Therefore a routiner [sic] in the art at the time of the invention
would have been motivated to remove the histamine from the
histamine-immunoglobulin mixture taught by [Yoshii I], [Yoshii II],
[Naiki], [Getlik], [Takashi] and [McMichael] using the methods of
separating small molecular weight molecules from larger molecules
taught by [Wood] with the expectation that the histamine activated
immunoglobulin would retain activity for the reasons disclosed by
McMichael and that the histamine activated immunoglobulin with
histamine removed would have fewer undesirable side effects.
Id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007