Ex Parte Koenig - Page 5


              Appeal No. 2006-0185                                                                 Page 5                
              Application No. 10/159,253                                                                                 

                     Appellant argues that “[n]either Piccini nor Johnson, alone or in combination,                      
              disclose or suggest that isoprenoid compounds, particularly farnesol, inhibit Candida                      
              albicans.”  Appeal Brief, page 10.  Appellant argues that the examiner is “using improper                  
              hindsight” by “overstating the disclosures of Piccini and Johnson, and making the                          
              substitution of farnesol into the wipe of Piccini us[ing] information gleaned only from                    
              Applicant’s disclosure, not the cited references or the knowledge of one skilled in the art                
              at the time of the invention.”  Appeal Brief, page 8 (emphasis added).                                     
                     As we understand it, Appellant’s argument is that Piccini would not have led those                  
              skilled in the art to replace or substitute the cedrol disclosed by Piccini with the farnesol              
              disclosed in Johnson because motivation is not found in the references or from                             
              knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time of the invention, but rather from                          
              information gleaned from the specification. However, we do not find this argument                          
              persuasive.                                                                                                
                     It has been held that “[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a                    
              reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only                   
              knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention                   
              was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure,                          
              such a reconstruction is proper.”  In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ                         
              209, 212 (CCPA 1971).  In this case, Johnson teaches that a solution comprising the                        


                                                                                                                         
              those concentrations correspond to 22.34 mg/liter to 11.17 grams/liter.  The instant specification discloses
              that an effective amount of an isoprenoid compound is 0.001% to about 2% by weight of solution (page 4,    
              lines 1-2).  A concentration of 1% by weight of solution is 1 gram/100 milliliters, or 10 grams/liter.     
              Therefore, the range of effective amounts disclosed in the specification corresponds to 10 mg/liter to 20  
              grams/liter.                                                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007