Ex Parte Zasloff et al - Page 6


              Appeal No. 2007-0055                                                                 Page 6                
              Application No. 10/053,299                                                                                 

              especially relies on Pederson’s disclosure of isoleucine (Answer 5: 20-21) and its use in                  
              the form of a chelate for reducing microbial growth in the oral cavity (Answer 4: 13-16).                  
                     Appellants argue that Pederson’s composition requires a metal ion attached to                       
              amino acids by “coordinate covalent bonds,” and therefore do not describe amino acids                      
              in its therapeutic composition.  Br. 17 to 19: 9.  “There is no disclosure in Pederson that                
              a particular amino acid, isoleucine, not in the form a chelate with a metal ion, when                      
              applied to eukaryotic cells in a microbial blocking quantity can block microbes from                       
              attaching themselves to cell surfaces.”  Reply Br. 2: ¶ 5.  They also argue that                           
              Pederson’s metal chelates “functions by an entirely different mechanism” in which the                      
              metal ion reacts with a sulfur-containing amino acid in the oral cavity.  Br. 19.  In                      
              contrast, Appellants state that it is “the isoleucine compound that blocks microbial                       
              adherence” in the claimed subject matter.  Id., 17.                                                        
                     To begin our analysis, we observe that Pederson does not disclose that its metal                    
              amino acid chelate blocks “microbial adherence to a eukaryotic cell surface in a                           
              mammal” as recited in claim 1.  Rather, it describes the chelate as interacting with the                   
              odor producing volatile sulfur compounds that cause halitosis.  Although the Examiner                      
              does not explicitly state so, it is apparent that he has inferred that microbial adherence                 
              would be blocked inherently when applying Pederson’s metal amino acid chelate to the                       
              oral cavity.  Inherency asks whether a subject matter is “necessarily” present in the prior                
              art reference, “not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.”  Trintec Indus.                
              v. Top-U.S.A., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295, 63 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2002).                                 
                     It is the Examiner’s burden to provide “reason to believe . . . that the claimed                    
              subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art.”  In re                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013