Appeal No. 2002-0546 Page 4
Application No. 08/809,379
agent, would act similarly. In addition, another agent, methylergonivine maleate,
while useful in the third stage of labor, is contraindicated in the first and second
stages. See id. at 10.
Appellant also contends that the ability of misoprostol to inhibit uterine
bleeding was unexpected. Appellant cites the Physician’ Desk Reference (1999)
(PDR), which contraindicates the use of misoprostol in pregnant women. See id.
at 11-12.
The burden is on the examiner to make a prima facie case of
obviousness, and the examiner may meet this burden by demonstrating that the
prior art would lead the ordinary artisan to combine the relevant teachings of the
references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598-99 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Obviousness is determined in
view of the sum of all of the relevant teachings in the art, not isolated teachings
in the art. See In re Kuderna, 426 F.2d 385, 389, 165 USPQ 575, 578 (CCPA
1970); see also In re Shuman, 361 F.2d 1008, 1012, 150 USPQ 54, 57 (CCPA
1966). In assessing the teachings of the prior art references, the examiner
should also consider those disclosures that may teach away from the invention.
See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
As noted by the examiner, both Campos and Sanchez-Ramos teach the
use of misoprostol to induce labor at term. While both references compare the
effects of misoprostol to oxytocin, neither reference suggests that misoprostol
may be administered in the third stage of labor to limit postpartum hemorrhaging.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007