Appeal 2006-3020
Application 10/109,374
15. Dunn discloses chelators that can be derivatized “to
biomolecules” including “receptor binding molecules.” (Dunn, col. 5,
ll. 19-27, cited in Answer 6.)
16. Dunn further discloses the “[a]dvantages of using biomolecules
includ[ing] enhanced tissue targeting through specificity and delivery.”
(Dunn, col. 5, ll. 32-34.)
17. “Coupling of the chelating moieties to biomolecules can be
accomplished by several known methods.” (Dunn, col. 5, ll. 34-36.) This
finding is consistent with the teachings in the Specification. (Spec. 20: 0431
(“radiolabeled LTB4 antagonist compounds . . . can be synthesized using
standard synthetic methods known to those skilled in the art”).)
18. Dunn teaches that biomolecules containing radioactive metal ions
are useful as “diagnostic and therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals” (Dunn, col.
7, ll. 4-8).
19. The scope and content of the prior art and level of skill in the
relevant art is reflected in Dureu and Dunn.
20. The differences between the prior art and Appellants’ claimed
invention is that Dureu’s LTB4 binding compounds are not chelated to a
metal radionuclide and are not disclosed as useful for imaging; and Dunn’s
chelators, while disclosed as useful when bound to biomolecules (including
receptor binding molecules), are not expressly disclosed bound to LTB4
receptor binding molecules.
21. The problem to be solved, faced by Appellants, was “imaging
sites of infection and/or inflammation in a patient.” (Spec. 1: 0011.)
22. Dunn’s teachings that their chelators can be derivatized to
“receptor binding molecules” would have motivated the skilled artisan to
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013