Appeal No. 2002-1874 Page 3
Application No. 09/079,329
claim the subject matter that applicant regards as the invention. Claims 47-49,
54,56, 237-244 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Selwood or Lo as combined with the admitted prior art, and claims 47-49, 54-56
and 237-244 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Khaidar and Lo. After careful review of the record and
consideration of the issues before us, we reverse all of the rejections of record.
DISCUSSION
1. 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph, Enablement
Claims 47-49, 54-57 and 237-240 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, on the grounds that the specification does not enable any person
skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims.
The rejection asserts that the specification only illustrates the effects of
arginine on methylglyoxal, while the claim reads on any carbonyl compound “as
the term ‘toxic’ does not define any specific structure or origin of the carbonyl
compounds being blocked.” Examiner’s Answer, page 5. The rejection
contends further that there are no examples presented by the specification of
blocking other carbonyl containing compounds, and that the disclosure provides
no guidance as to what other compounds may be blocked and under what
conditions. See id.
The rejection cites Lo and Selwood for their teachings of the blocking of
methylglyoxal, and also cites Khaidar for is teaching of the possible interaction of
arginine and carbonyl compounds involved in collagen cross-linking. But then
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007