Appeal No. 2006-2368 Page 3
Application No. 10/247,032
the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Because we affirm that rejection, we
decline to reach the merits of the two rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)
DISCUSSION
Claims 1-3, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20 and 30-35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rosenblum as evidenced by Erren.
We initially note that the claims stand or fall together. Appellants discuss
the limitations of the different claims, see Appeal Brief, pages 5-6, but do not
argue them separately. Merely pointing out differences in what the claims cover
is not an argument as to why the claims are separately patentable. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We thus focus our analysis on independent claims 1 and 32.
According to the Examiner’s Answer:
Rosenblum [ ] teach[es] a method of treating or preventing
atherosclerosis in [a, sic] mammal comprising administering to the
mammal a combination of the compound[s] herein elected. See,
particularly, claims 6-10. The method is particularly effective in
human. See, particularly, column 20, lines 39-48. Note the
recitation of the level of C-reactive protein is not see[n, sic] to
further limit the claims because patient[s, sic] with vascular
condition[s, sic], such as atherosclerosis, . . . inherently hav[e, sic]
elevated c-reactive protein levels (See, e.g., Erren, the entire
document, particularly, page 2355).
Examiner’s Answer, page 4.
We recognize that 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,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007