Appeal No. 2006-2826 Page 11
Application No. 09/993,907
Weissleder in view of Klaveness
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over
Weissleder in view of Klaveness.6
The Examiner cited Klaveness for its teaching of paramagnetic particles
comprising starch-coated ion oxide particles. Answer, page 4. Appellants
acknowledged that these particles were known in the prior art. Brief, page 10. No
additional arguments were provided except to the extent to state that Klaveness “adds
nothing relevant to Weissleder.” Id. For the reasons stated by the Examiner, we find
that sufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness has been established. Thus, we
affirm this rejection.
Weissleder in view of Peng
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over
Weissleder in view of Peng.7
Peng teaches chelating groups that comprise aminopolycarboxylic acid as
recited in claim 23. Answer, page 5. The Examiner concluded:
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have modified
Weissleder et al such that it includes aminopolycarboxylic acid as the
chelating agent for use with paramagnetic particles. Such a modification
merely involves the substitution of one well known type of chelating agent
for another.
Id. at 5.
Appellants argued that the combination of references is “questionable” because
Peng discloses pharmaceutical compositions, not coated medical devices. Brief,
5 Michaels, U.S. Pat. No. 6,112,908, issued Sep. 5, 2000.
6 Klaveness et al. (Klaveness), U.S. Pat. No. 6,610,269, issued Aug. 26, 2003.
7 Peng et al. (Peng), U.S. Pub. Pat. App. No. 2002/0061871 A1, published May 23, 2002.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007