Appeal No. 2005-2671
Application No. 09/971,774
3 and 4, the rejection of claims 3, 4 and 10 over Jacobi, Monson and Allgood is
reversed. Thus, rejection II is affirmed with respect to claims 1-2, 5-9 and 11-12.
III. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
Jacobi and Monson in view of Nicolson.
We have affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 over Jacobi and
Monson. In this rejection the examiner relies on Nicolson to reject claim 9, drawn to the
use of heparin or hyaluronic acid in combination with taurolidine and/or taurultam. The
examiner notes that Jacobin and Monson teach the administration of taurolidine and/or
taurultam with heparin but not hyaluronic acid. The examiner relies on the disclosure of
Nicolson that “glycosaminoglycans such as heparin and hyaluronic acid are useful for
the inhibition of tumor invasiveness and metastasis. See abstract and col 10, lines 4-
10.” Answer, page 7.
Above, we have affirmed the rejection of claim 9 over Jacobi in view of Monson.
Appellants’ further discussion of Nicolson does not overcome the underlying rejection of
Jacobi in view of Monson. Moreover, appellants fail to provide a reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would not administer taurolidine and/or taurultam with heparin or
an alternative glycosaminoglycan to heparin, i.e., hyaluronic acid, for the similar
purpose of inhibiting tumor invasiveness and tumor metastasis. Therefore the rejection
of claim 9 over Jacobi and Monson in view of Nicholson is affirmed. The examiner does
not rely on the disclosure of Nicholson to reject claims 3 and 4. For the reasons
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007