Appeal No. 2005-2671
Application No. 09/971,774
Answer, page 8. On the other hand, Monson appears to reasonably provide an
appropriate suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present
invention to administer taurolidine after closing a surgical opening and removing a
tumor.
We, however, agree with appellants that claims 3 and 4 stand on a different
footing than claim 1. The examiner argues in the Answer, at page 4, that “patients in
need of metastasis prevention would include those scheduled for cancer surgery and
those who have had cancer surgery.” Appellants respond arguing “[w]ith respect to
claims 3, 4 and 10, which further specify additionally administering taurolidine and/or
taurultam to the patient prior to forming the surgical opening in the patient's abdomen,
no combination of the cited references suggest this embodiment of the invention.” Brief,
page 7.
The examiner has not indicated and we do not find a particular suggestion in
Monson of administration of taurolidine or taurultam prior to conducting surgery for
removal of a tumor. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of the examiner as to claims 3
and 4.
II. Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Jacobi and Monson
in view of Allgood.
With respect to this rejection, appellants separately argue the limitation of claim
6. Thus we address claim 6 separately, and claims 1-5 and 7-12 stand or fall together
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007