Appeal No. 2007-1140
Application No. 10/753,729
DISCUSSION
Rejection of claim 1-11, 13-18, 20, and 22 over Cuthbertson
To establish obviousness, the Supreme Court in Graham v. John
Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) has required that the following
factors be taken into consideration: (1) the scope and contents of the prior
art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter;
(3) the level of skill in the pertinent art; and (4) evidence of secondary
considerations.
Scope and contents of the prior art
Cuthbertson teaches peptide-based compounds for use as diagnostic
imaging agents (1: 4-6). The compounds are defined by formula I (6: 34 to
9: 20). They comprise an RGD peptide component (“. . . X3-G-D . . .”)
which is attached to X1 and X7-X8 moieties. X1 is defined to comprise a
moiety “suitable for modifying the pharmacokinetics or blood clearance
rate” and/or “a reporter (R) moiety suitable for in vivo imaging.” (7: 14-28.)
X7 is defined similarly (8: 24-25). X8 “represents a reporter (R) moiety or is
NH2 or is absent.” (9: 10-15). The moiety for “for modifying the
pharmacokinetics or blood clearance rate” is preferably polyethyleneglycol
(7: 18-19). For convenience, we use the term “biomodifier” to describe this
moiety because that is the term used for the same functional group in the
instant application (Specification 8: 13-17). We also designate the end of
the compound where X1 is attached as the peptide’s N-terminus, and where
the X7-X8 is attached as the peptide’s C-terminus, because these positions
correspond to the amino- (N) and carboxy- (C) terminus of the RGD peptide
component.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013