Appeal No. 2006-1993 Page 8
Application No. 10/147,651
In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference, it
must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants argue that “Baldasarre describes administering probucol to
patients with atherosclerosis or with a genetic defect causing famial combined
hyperlipedemia,” and that “[t]he first group is specifically excluded by the claims;
the second is not mediated by SR-BI, but a defect in a different protein involved
in hypercholestermia.” Appeal Brief, page 14. We agree, and the rejection is
reversed.
The examiner argues that “Baldassarre teaches the administration of
probucol to atherosclerosis patients to decrease serum cholesterol. SR-BI
mediates an increase in serum cholesterol.” Examiner’s Answer, page 9. But as
noted by appellants, the study “was for the express purpose of treating or
preventing atherosclerosis,” which is specifically excluded by the claim language.
Reply Brief, page 7.
Claims 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Azen.
According to the rejection:
Azen teaches the oral administration of vitamin E and
vitamin C to patients reduces the levels of total cholesterol and LDL
cholesterol (page 2370, Table 1). Further, Azen teaches that
administration of vitamin C decreases intima thickness (page 2371,
column 1, paragraph 3). Azen also discloses that vitamin E
reduced coronary artery lesion progression (page 2371, col. 1,
parag. 2, lines 5-9). Each of reducing levels of total cholesterol,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007