Appeal No. 2003-1736
Application No. 09/123,137
prior art references.” Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co., 227 F.3d
1361, 1371, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In this situation, the examiner's rejection fails to show that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to incorporate an active oxygen species in a
hydrogel, as claimed. In addition, the prior art noted in the specification discloses that
the efficacy of SOD use for the treatment of ischemic/reperfusion events and pelvic
adhesions has been limited by its rapid elimination from the blood stream.
Specification, page 4. The examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to indicate
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate an active
oxygen inhibitor which is known to be rapidly eliminated from the blood stream into a
hydrogel, as claimed. Nor has the examiner provided evidence as to why one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art disclosure of systemic administration of
oxygen inhibitors such as SOD, would have been motivated to apply such compositions
topically or would have had an expectation of success that the composition would
continue to deliver the active oxygen inhibitor, normally rapidly eliminated from the
blood stream, at a site for days to weeks.
We do not reach appellants' argument or evidence of unexpected results, as we
do not find the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness. The
rejection of the claims for obviousness is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007