Appeal No. 2005-2671
Application No. 09/971,774
[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to administer a solution of taurolidine and/or
taurultam (with or without heparin) during laparoscopic abdominal cancer
surgery. MONSON had taught that these species (taurolidine and/or
taurultam) are functional equivalents for the inhibition of metastases. ... It
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to administer a solution of taurolidine and/or
taurultam before and/or after cancer surgery for the benefits of treating
malignancies as well as prevention of metastases, taught by MONSON. ...
We agree that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to claim 1. Jacobi teaches administration of taurolidine during surgery in
the form of a postoperative lavage. Translation, page 9. Thus, Jacobi teaches the step
of “the method including a step of administering taurolidine, taurultam or a mixture
thereof to the patient's abdomen prior to said closing of said surgical opening and after
said surgically removing said cancerous tumor” as claimed. Monson clearly suggests
the use of taurolidine, especially following the surgical removal of tumors. Monson,
page 3. Thus, in our view, the examiner has provided sufficient evidence to support a
prima facie case of obviousness, including a reason suggestion or motivation to
combine the cited references.
Appellants argue in response that (Brief, page 7)
There is no suggestion in the applied prior art of the specific steps of the
present claims, wherein the tumor is removed, taurolidine and/or taurultam
is administered to the abdomen prior to closing of the surgical opening
and after surgical removal of the tumor, and additionally administering
taurolidine and/or taurultam to the patient after closing the surgical
opening.
With respect to claim 1, we disagree with appellants’ argument. We agree with
the examiner that “Appellants fail to state why the combination of references is invalid.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007