Appeal No. 2002-2284 Page 5
Application No. 09/176,492
Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
On this record, we find that Taub teach that the stimulatory effect of, inter
alia, EGF was not observed in Medium K-1. As a result, we find no suggestion in
the combination of prior art relied upon to add EGF to Medium K-1. Therefore, it
is our opinion that the examiner failed to provide the evidence necessary to meet
his burden3 of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Taub in view of Bettger.
Almeida in view of Taub, Bettger and Zhaolie:
The examiner relies on Almeida (Answer, page 4), to teach the production
of rotavirus in Vero kidney cell cultures in serum-free medium. However, the
examiner finds that Almeida differs from the claimed invention “by not
propagating the Vero cell cultures in the absence of serum before the cells are
infected with rotavirus.” Id. Therefore, the examiner relies on Zhaolie (Answer,
pages 4-5), to teach the desirability of growing “Vero cell lines in the absence of
serum in order to prevent contamination of adventitious agents….” In addition,
the examiner relies on Taub and Bettger, as set forth above, to teach the
claimed media.
Almedia and Zhaolie, however, fail to teach the claimed media. As
explained above, Taub and Bettger fail to make up for the deficiency in Almedia
and Zhaolie. Therefore, it is our opinion that the examiner failed to provide the
3 The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness rests on the examiner. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007