Appeal No. 2006-2415 Page 8
Application No. 09/410,336
detecting the specific location of breast cancer cells within a breast duct or ductal
network.” Appeal Brief, page 5; see also Reply Brief (filed August 12, 2005), pages 1-5.
However, Appellants’ argument ignores the fact that Schmitt-Willich discloses
(column 13, lines 24-52) that breast cancer tumors can be visualized by attaching
monoclonal antibodies specific for breast cancers to detectable gadolinium-polymer
complexes. Thus, viewing Yoshimoto and Schmitt-Willich together, one of ordinary skill
would have recognized that using Yoshimoto’s methods to deliver the antibody-polymer-
gadolinium complex taught by Schmitt-Willich to the breast duct network would allow the
antibodies to bind to the cancer cells within the ducts, thereby allowing the practitioner
to visualize the location of tumors within the ducts.
Appellants argue that Yoshimoto teaches away from the claimed method
because Yoshimoto states that their method did not show the exact location of diseased
tissue within the breast. Appeal Brief, paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5.
We disagree. In our view, rather than teaching away, the asserted lack of
specificity in Yoshimoto’s method, combined with the ability of the detectable antibody-
polymer-gadolinium complex of Schmitt-Willich to specifically pick out tumor cells within
the breast duct, would have suggested that Schmitt-Willich’s complexes would have
been advantageous in the diagnostic methods taught by Yoshimoto.
Appellants argue that Schmitt-Willich does not teach or suggest that the
complexing agents, disclosed as being useful in magnetic resonance imaging, can be
used “to identify the specific location of lesions within breast ducts.” Appeal Brief,
page 6. Appellants urge that “[i]n fact, throughout the entire [Schmitt-Willich] document,
there is but a single mention of breast cancer and that is in relation to the use of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007