Appeal No. 2003-0837 Page ~ PAGE ~10~
Application No. 09/078,531
Claim 38
According to the examiner (Answer, page 7), “[c]laim 38 recites the further
administration of inhibitors of IL-1.” While not expressly stated by the examiner,
Grande does not teach this subject matter. To make up for this deficiency in
Grande, the examiner relies on Bruder and Pettipher. Answer, pages 7-8.
Bruder and Pettipher, however, fail to make up for the deficiency in
Grande. See supra. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 38 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Grande in view of Bruder and Pettipher.
Claim 39
According to the examiner (Answer, page 7), “[c]laim 39 recites the further
administration of inhibitors of osteochondral precursor cells.” While not expressly
stated by the examiner, Grande does not teach this subject matter. To make up
for this deficiency in Grande, the examiner relies on Nevo and Itay. Answer,
pages 7-8.
Nevo and Itay, however, fail to make up for the deficiency in Grande. See
supra. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Grande in view of Nevo and Itay.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007