Appeal No. 2006-2587 Page 2
Application No. 09/879,710
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Joullié et al. (Joullié) 3,892,852 Jul. 1, 1975
Meisner 4,772,591 Sep. 20, 1988
Chemical Abstracts (Chem. Abst.), “L-Cysteine, S-methyl- (9CI),” Registry No.
1187-84-4
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 2, 3, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Meisner.
Claims 2-8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Meisner, Joullié and Chem. Abst.
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
Anticipation:
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear
in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson,
116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Every element
of the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.”
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913,
1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The examiner finds (Answer, page 4), “Meisner teaches that a
composition containing among other ingredients, an anti-inflammatory substance,
specifically, S-methylcysteine is administered to a patient.” According to the
examiner (id.), “[e]ven though the composition is administered to the patient for a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007