Appeal No. 2006-2415 Page 6
Application No. 09/410,336
Willich, column 8, lines 19-27 and 44-52. One of ordinary skill using Yoshimoto’s ductal
injection methods for locating breast tumors would also have considered it obvious to
attach Schmitt-Willich’s gadolinium-polymer complex to an antibody specific for breast
tumors, since Schmitt-Willich teaches that gadolinium-polymer complexes attached to
monoclonal antibodies specific for human breast tumors can be used “for visualization
of tumors.” Id. at column 13, lines 25-52.
We also agree that a person of ordinary skill, following the suggestion in
Schmitt-Willich of using the antibody-polymer-gadolinium complex to visualize breast
cancer tumors, would have considered it obvious to wash away unbound detecting
agent before performing the detecting step. As argued by the examiner, “the presence
of such non-specifically bound reagents will preclude or obscure detection of the
location of the specifically-bound reagent. If the diagnostic procedure is an endoscopic
procedure, which is performed in vivo, the[n] necessarily the step of washing must be
performed in vivo.” Answer, page 19.
Canto supports the examiner’s position. Canto identifies the location of a specific
undesirable esophageal cell type in patients by applying a dye which binds specifically
to those cells, and then washing away the excess dye. Canto, page 2. By washing
away the non-specifically bound excess dye, Canto was able to determine the location
of the undesirable cells. Id. (“Positive staining was defined as blue-stained
endoscopically normal esophageal mucosa that persisted despite vigorous water
irrigation.”) (Emphasis added.)
Thus, in our view, one skilled in the art would have recognized that removing
non-specifically bound detecting agent by washing the breast duct would have made it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007