Ex Parte Corpet et al - Page 6


                 Appeal No. 2004-1790                                                       Page 6                   
                 Application No. 09/836,971                                                                          

                        Appellants argue that “Crowson has a critical and fatal flaw.  Crowson                       
                 exposes HT 29 colorectal cancer cells, in vitro, to various agents.  There is not                   
                 one word concerning administration of the agents to a mammal as explicitly                          
                 claimed by the Appellants.”  Appeal Brief, pages 9-10 (emphasis in original).                       
                        We agree.  In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory                    
                 reference, it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either                       
                 explicitly or inherently.  See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d                      
                 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  The examiner asserts that “Crowson discloses that                     
                 HT29 colorectal cells are of known malignancy and PEG inhibits the growth of                        
                 HT29 cancer cell lines,” arguing that “it is implicit that PEG is effective in treating             
                 or inhibiting colon or rectal cancer.”  That is not, however, explicit or inherent                  
                 teaching of administering the PEG to a mammal, thus Crowson fails to teach                          
                 every limitation of the claimed invention, and the rejection is reversed.                           
                 3.     Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)                                                           
                        Claims 9-11 and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                       
                 obvious over Crowson.  The rejection is set forth below.                                            
                        Crowson [ ] (described above) teaches the use and efficacy of                                
                        several cytocidal and bowel preparation agents such as PEG,                                  
                        cetrimide, povidone iodine, etc.  Crowson shows that the                                     
                        compounds are capable of killing colorectal cell lines with different                        
                        efficacies and concludes that only cetrimide is capable of                                   
                        completely killing the cells.  However, the instant claims do not                            
                        mention the amount of therapeutic activity desired.  Besides, PEG                            
                        still exhibits about 30 to 40% activity, which is considered to be                           
                        significant.  Further, the results in table Iv [sic] shows [sic] that the                    
                        activity is varies [sic] with the compounds as well as incubation                            
                        time.  Accordingly depending on the amount of activity desired, a                            
                        skilled artisan would be able to use PEG of Crowson, for different                           
                        time intervals with an expectation to achieve the desired                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007