Appeal No. 2005-1797 Page 10
Application No. 09/954,975
gallium compositions inhibit HIV [replication], as such, one of ordinary skill in the
art would expect that virus shed … would also be reduced.” We agree.
Appellants provide no evidence to suggest that by inhibiting HIV replication, one
would not also reduce virus shed.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Narasimhan, Collery, and Bernstein.
Claim 32:
According to appellants (Supplemental Brief, page 12), “claim 32 recites
reducing virus burden. The examiner has not pointed to any teaching in the cited
references that describes this [claim] element….” In response, the examiner
finds (Answer, page 10), “the prior art discloses that gallium compositions inhibit
HIV [replication], as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that … viral
burden would also be reduced.” We agree. Appellants provide no evidence to
suggest that by inhibiting HIV replication, one would not also reduce viral burden.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Narasimhan, Collery, and Bernstein.
Claim 35:
According to appellants (Supplemental Brief, page 12), “claim 35 recites
inhibiting development of AIDS. The examiner has not pointed to any teaching in
the cited references that describes this [claim] element….” In response, the
examiner points out that appellants acknowledge (specification, page 2) “that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007