Appeal 2006-3020
Application 10/109,374
Appellants contend:
Dereu . . . is limited to therapeutic use for treating
inflammation [and] has nothing to do with imaging
inflammation. . . . Dereu . . . fails to disclose a chelator or
metal suitable for imaging.
The Dereu reference provides no suggestion to modify
the reference to add a chelator . . . .
Despite the lack of any teaching or suggestion from
the Dereu reference concerning modification to allow
imaging, the Dunn reference is supplied to disclose a
chelator. Appellants see no motivation in the references
themselves to combine their teachings. . . .
. . . .
Even had the Examiner found a motivation in the
references, there is little reason to suspect success.
(Br. 8-9 (emphasis Appellants’).)
We frame this third issue: Would the teachings of Dereu and Dunn
have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention of claim
39, with a reasonable expectation of success?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Claim Interpretation
1. The compounds of claim 39 require “a Leukotriene B4 (LTB4)
receptor binding moiety comprising an aryl or heteroaryl alkyl ether” and “a
chelator” but otherwise are not limited.
2. Claim 39 is defined by functional terms, except for the “aryl or
heteroaryl alkyl ether” group.
3. The Specification defines “chelator” to mean “the moiety or group
on a reagent that binds to a metal radionuclide through the formation of
chemical bonds with one or more donor atoms.” (Spec. 17: 0412.)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013