Appeal No. 2004-2249
Application No. 09/820,159
plasmin to eliminate intraocular pressure. (Specification, page
3, lines 16-23.)
With respect to appealed claim 6, the appellants contend
that “[t]he Trese et al./Zaffaroni et al. combination is
defective and lacking a motivation to combine...” (Appeal brief
at 7-8.) Specifically, the appellants urge that a “slow
sustained release of plasmin only makes sense in the context of
the present invention where the vitreous is left in place
following plasmin action to create a separation” and that
“Trese...teaches the need for a quick complete surgical
procedure.” (Id. at 8.) We cannot agree.
While Trese states that separation of the vitreous from the
retina occurs “after a relatively short period, for example five
to sixty minutes” (column 2, lines 7-12), the reference also
teaches that the plasmin may be introduced into the
“vitreous...by any conventional means...” (column 2, lines 4-7).
Zaffaroni, which the present specification describes as teaching
a sustained released intraocular device suitable for use in the
claimed invention (page 4, lines 6-10), teaches such a
conventional means for delivery. In particular, Zaffaroni
discloses an ocular drug delivery device 10 positioned in
immediate contact with an eyeball 29 for osmotically
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007