Appeal No. 2002-1121 Page 3
Application No. 09/171,169
DISCUSSION
Claims 14-22, 24, 25 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being rendered obvious by the Jacobus patent.
According to the rejection, Jacobus teaches the use of nucleoside
phosphates, such as those required by the instantly claimed methods, “to hydrate
retained mucous secretions and stimulate ciliary beat frequency which promotes
the drainage of sinuses.” Examiner’s Answer, page 4. The rejection states:
Jacobus [ ] does not teach a method of treating corneal
injury per se; although a further method of treating corneal injury is
claimed, the treatment set forth in the instant claims is targeted to
lacrimal tissues. As Jacobus [ ] teach[es] the use of nucleoside
phosphates to promote fluid/secretion drainage of the sinuses, and
sinus structures such as the sclera venus sinus or canal of
Schlemm- a venous channel that encircles the eye in the angle at
the sclera-cornea junction, which would be viewed as a part of the
cornea, the nexus between the differences in the prior art and the
invention as claimed are adequately bridged.
* * * *
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to use nucleoside phosphates . . . to treat lacrimal
tissues since the prior art has taught the effectiveness of
nucleoside phosphates in promoting fluid/secretion drainage in
sinus structures present in the eye and nasal cavity. Moreover, as
ciliary processes are also present in the eye and are part of the
network of drainage associated with structures in the eye such as
the cornea, and the prior art teaches that nucleoside phosphates
increase the cilial beat frequency and therefore promote drainage,
one of skill in the art would have been provided with a reasonable
expectation of success in treating lacrimal tissues with nucleoside
phosphates.
Examiner’s Answer, pages 4-5.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007