Ex Parte Chi et al - Page 4


             Appeal No. 2006-0674                                                              Page 4                
             Application No. 10/083,565                                                                              

             tumors and metastases” (id., column 15, lines 52-57).  Broder “also comprehends                         
             methods of treating mammalian patients afflicted with cancers, tumors, . . . and any other              
             disease conditions responsive to paclitaxel, taxanes, docetaxel, etoposide, prodrugs and                
             derivatives of all the foregoing . . . Among the types of carcinoma which may be treated                
             particularly effectively with oral paclitaxel, docetaxel, other taxanes, and their prodrugs             
             and derivatives, are hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastases, and cancers of the                  
             gastrointestinal tract, pancreas and lung” (id., column 15, lines 32-44).                               
                    Claim 7, which represents the claimed invention in its broadest aspect, requires                 
             intravenous administration of docetaxel to a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma.                     
             According to the examiner, “there are not enough blaze marks [in Broder] to conclude                    
             that the invention of claim 7 is anticipated” (Examiner’s Answer, page 4), but claim 7 is               
             nevertheless unpatentable because “Broder [ ] discloses (col. 9, lines 1-12) that                       
             docetaxel (“heretofore administered only parenterally”) is useful for treating                          
             hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastasis (col. 15, line 43)” (id., page 3).                        
                    The only differences between Broder and the claimed invention identified by the                  
             examiner concern limitations appearing only in claims dependent on claim 7.  If we                      
             understand the examiner’s reason for concluding that claim 7 is unpatentable, then, it is               
             that Broder provides evidence that docetaxel was already known in the art to be “useful                 
             for treating hepatocellular carcinoma” parenterally at the time of the invention (id.).                 
                    Nevertheless, in our view, the examiner’s interpretation of Broder’s teachings                   
             goes too far.  “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and              
             these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the              
             prior art.  In making this evaluation, all facts must be considered.  The Patent Office has             





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007