Appeal No. 2004-0647 Page 10
Application No. 09/941,965
IV. Obviousness over Kempf or Hatta, in view of Bier or Sprotte
V. Obviousness over Kempf or Hatta, in view of Stephan
Claims 1, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kempf or Hatta, each in view of Bier or Sprotte, while claims 1, 5 and 7 stand rejected
as unpatentable over Kempf or Hatta, each in view of Stephan.
Bier teaches that “[i]mmunoglobulins derived from the blood, plasma or serum of
animals, such as cow[s], goats, sheep and pigs, contain a broad spectrum of antibodies
to bacteria and yeast” (Bier, Abstract) and can be orally administered to treat
gastrointestinal disorders caused by bacterial and/or yeast overgrowth. Sprotte
describes oral administration of immunoglobulins from plasma, colostral milk, milk, eggs
or cell cultures to treat chronic pain (Sprotte, Abstract). Stephan describes a spray-
dried bovine colostrum preparation with high anti-bacterial antibody titers.
These three references are relied on merely to meet limitations of certain of the
dependent claims, and therefore do not overcome the underlying deficiencies of either
Hatta or Kempf. Both of these rejections are reversed.
CONCLUSION
We find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for any of the claims;
accordingly, all of the rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007