Appeal No. 2007-0091
Application No. 09/765,491
Perhaps most importantly for this case, Jussila suggests possible
agents for therapeutic interventions involving blood vessel and lymphatic
vessel overgrowth. See Figure 6. Suggested agents for treating pathological
angiogenesis are anti-VEGF, anti-VEGFR-2, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors,
while “VEGFR-3 inhibitors” are suggested for treating overgrowth of
lymphatic vessels. Thus, Jussila supports Appellant’s position that those
skilled in the art would not have expected all angiogenesis inhibitors to also
inhibit lymphangiogenesis.
It is true that Deutch defines “angiogenesis activity” as “the ability to
inhibit or enhance the formation of blood vessels or lymph vessels.” Col. 3,
ll. 21-23. That definition, however, only shows how Deutch was using the
phrase “angiogenesis activity” in that patent specification. It is not sufficient
to show that those skilled in the art recognized “angiogenesis” as including
lymph vessel formation (lymphangiogenesis) and therefore does not
outweigh the evidence provided by Jussila.
In sum, the Examiner’s rejections rely on the assumption that
angiogenesis inhibitors would also have been expected to inhibit
lymphangiogenesis, but this assumption is not supported by the evidence of
record. We therefore reverse the rejections of claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
5. OBVIOUSNESS: CLAIMS 10-12 AND 18
Claims 10-12 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Aggarwal.8 The Examiner cites Aggarwal as teaching a method for
treating, among other things, basal cell carcinoma or squamous cell
8 Aggarwal, WO 95/18606, published July 13, 1995.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013