Appeal No. 2002-2209 Page 7
Application No. 08/137,168
(reference citations omitted)).
Here the method steps set forth in claim 37 on appeal appear to be those steps
which have been historically performed to obtain monospecific and polyspecific
antivenoms. Specification, page 4, lines 26-30 (reference citation omitted) (“The
scientific study of antivenom began with the work of Henry Sewell in 1887 and has
progressed throughout the present century. Currently, a large number and diversity of
monospecific and polyspecific antivenoms are produced around the world.”). Thus,
claim 37 includes within its scope a mixture of two monospecific antivenoms as have
been historically produced.
3. Patentability of Claim 37.
The main issue presented in this appeal concerns whether the evidence of
nonobviousness the examiner considered in determining that claims 39 through 41 are
patentable is commensurate in scope with the remaining claims that stand rejected,
e.g., claim 37. That evidence appears in the working examples of the specification, the
data of which are graphically depicted in Fig. 2 of the application.
Specifically, assays were performed using four rattlesnake venoms. Id., page 16,
lines 32-34. The venoms used were a “mixed monospecific antivenom made up by
mixing equal volumes of equal concentrations of the monospecific IgG’s obtained by
immunising four groups of ewes against the venom of A. piscivorous, C. adamanteus,
C. atrox, and C. scutulatus.” Id., page 17, lines 4-8. Control studies were performed
using “monospecific antivenoms raised to each of the venoms and using polyspecific
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007