Appeal No. 2002-1874 Page 9
Application No. 09/079,329
L-isomer renders the use of the D-isomer obvious. But “conclusory statements”
as to teaching, suggestion or motivation to arrive at the claimed invention “do not
adequately address the issue [of obviousness].” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343-
44, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Because the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness, the rejection is reversed.
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.
According to the rejection, Khaidar teaches that reactive species such as
methylglyoxal, which are found in the blood, mediate the cross-linking of
physiological proteins, and that arginine can reduce that cross-linking, “it would
have been obvious to treat blood to remove this by-products and to use arginine
for their removal. As dialysis is a routine procedure for removal of unnecessary
contaminations from blood, it would be obvious to remove methylglyoxal or other
carbonyls using dialysis system.” Examiner’s Answer, page 8,
Appellant argues that the combination of Khaidar and Lo does not render
obvious the claimed invention. Appeal Brief, page 5. We agree.
This rejection suffers the same deficiencies as the prior obviousness
rejection, and for the reasons set forth with respect to that rejection, the rejection
of claims 47-49, 54-56 and 237-244 over the combination of Khaidar and Lo is
also reversed.
REVERSED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007