Appeal No. 2006-0872 Page 2
Application No. 09/899,704
11. A method of recovering cellular functions following injury in an individual in
need of treatment, comprising the steps of:
administering a therapeutically effective amount of ascorbic acid or a salt
of ascorbic acid to said individual,
wherein said cellular functions are selected from the group consisting of
proliferation, mitochondrial function, Na+-K+-ATPase protein expression, Na+-K+-
ATPase protein activity, and active Na+ transport.
The examiner relies upon the following references:
Fahim 4,711,780 Dec. 8, 1987
Rath et al. (Rath) 5,230,996 Jul. 27, 1993
Nowack, G et al, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1997, 145 (1), 175-183.
Saika et al, Graefes Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 1993
Apr, 231 (4) 221-7.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11-13, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Fahim, Rath, Saika or Nowak,1 either alone or in
combination. After careful review of the record and consideration of the issues
before us, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
As the claims stand or fall together, see Appeal Brief, page 6, we focus
our analysis on independent claim 11.
According to the rejection:
Each reference discloses that ascorbic acid phosphate or
ascorbic acid promote recovery of cellular functions and wound
1 With respect to the examiner’s reliance on the Saika and Nowak abstracts, we note “[c]itation
of and reliance upon an abstract is generally inappropriate where both the abstract and the
underlying document are prior art.” MPEP §706.02 (II) (8th edition, Revision 2, May 2004).
Moreover, in order for meaningful appellate review to occur, the examiner must present a full and
reasoned explanation of the rejection see, e.g., In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2002), and that would include analysis of the full underlying document.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007