Appeal 2006-3020
Application 10/109,374
binding moieties that have the recited alkyl ethers from all
possible LTB4 receptor binding moieties.
Perhaps the Examiner’s frequent reference to
“unlimited size” takes issue with the term's breadth, but that
is irrelevant to definiteness. See MPEP §2173.04 (“Breadth
Is Not Indefiniteness . . .[”]).
(Br. 7-8.)
In view of the above, we frame the second issue: Does claim 39,
defined by both function and structure, i.e., a “moiety comprising an aryl or
heteroaryl alkyl ether,” “particularly point out and distinctly claim[]” the
subject matter Appellants regard as their invention?
The Third Issue: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner contends: “It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
conjugated the LTB4 receptor binding compounds disclosed by Dureu to a
chelating agent.” (Answer 6.)
According to the Examiner,
one would be motivated to combine Dureu and Dunn. Dureu
discloses the compounds which bind LTB4 receptors which
specifically target inflammation. Dunn discloses that various
receptor-binding compounds may be easily conjugated with a
chelator and radionuclide to provide the advantage of site
specific radiotherapy. The use of chelators to bind a
radionuclide is well established for conjugating metals . . . as
shown by Dunn. . . . Also, since it is known in the art, as
indicated by Dunn, that chelators may be conjugated to
various targeting molecules, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
(Answer 6-7.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013