Ex Parte LOVE et al - Page 12


                Appeal No. 2006-2415                                                                               Page 12                     
                Application No. 09/410,336                                                                                                     

                         Appellants argue that “[t]here is no clear, particular suggestion or motivation in                                    
                the prior art to combine the teachings in the applied references in the proposed manner                                        
                to arrive at the specific method of identifying the location of breast cancer cells within a                                   
                breast duct” using the steps recited in the claims.  Appeal Brief, page 11; see also Reply                                     
                Brief, page 7.  Appellants argue that the lack of a specific motivation to combine the                                         
                cited prior art results in an inappropriate “obvious to try” rejection, and that “the general                                  
                teachings of administering non-specific contrast agents and dyes to patients are not                                           
                sufficient to make Applicants’ invention obvious.”  Appeal Brief, pages 12-13.                                                 
                         We do not agree that the cited references lack the specificity required to motivate                                   
                one skilled in the art to practice the claimed invention.  “[T]he ‘motivation-suggestion-                                      
                teaching’ test asks not merely what the references disclose, but whether a person of                                           
                ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the understandings and knowledge reflected in                                        
                the prior art, and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have                                            
                been led to make the combination recited in the claims.”  In re Kahn, 441 F. 3d 977,                                           
                988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006).                                                                                    
                         In our view, one skilled in the art would have recognized that, because they were                                     
                capable of locating breast cancer cells, Schmitt-Willich’s breast cancer-specific                                              
                antibody-polymer-gadolinium complexes would have been useful in Yoshimoto’s                                                    
                methods of detecting breast cancer tumors within breast ducts.  In addition to conferring                                      
                higher specificity through antibody binding, Schmitt-Willich provides motivation for using                                     
                antibody-polymer-gadolinium complexes in Yoshimoto’s methods by disclosing                                                     
                (column 8, lines 19-27) that “the polymer complexes according to the invention . . . are                                       
                more stable than Gd-DTPA,” i.e., the gadolinium-DTPA complex taught by Yoshimoto.                                              





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007