Ex parte RITTERSHAUS - Page 7




              Appeal No. 2000-1812                                                                                        
              Application No. 08/432,483                                                                                  

                     it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the                    
                     invention to make a CETP-toxoid hybrid peptide comprising amino acids                                
                     sequences of the carboxyl terminal 26 amino acid of human CETP and the                               
                     tetanus toxoid peptide taught by Valmori et al.  including a peptide which                           
                     consists of SEQ ID NO. 2 except that the cysteine is deleted with the                                
                     expectation that such peptides would elicit anti-CETP antibody that binds to                         
                     the known B cell epitopes in the C terminal end of CETP with the expectation                         
                     that the antibodies would neutralize CETP activity.  Alternatively the CETP-                         
                     tetanus toxic hybrid peptide could be used in assays to screen for anti-CETP                         
                     antibodies that neutralize CETP activity.                                                            
                     In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of                  
              presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24                       
              USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  Only if that burden is met, does the burden  of                        
              coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the applicant.  Id.  In order to meet that                
              burden the examiner must provide a reason, based on the prior art, or knowledge                             
              generally available in the art as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in             
              the art to arrive at the claimed invention.  Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories,              
              Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 297, n.24, 227 USPQ 657, 667, n.24 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S.                  
              1017 (1986).                                                                                                
                     On the record before us, the examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing                 
              why the prior art, relied on, would have led one of ordinary skill in this art to arrive at an              
              isolated antigenic hybrid peptide comprising a helper T cell epitope portion linked to a B                  
              cell portion wherein the B cell epitope portion comprises six to 26 consecutive amino                       
              acids of the carboxyl terminal 26 amino acids of human cholesteryl ester transfer protein.                  
              While it can reasonably be stated that Swenson describes raising antibodies in mice with                    


                                                            7                                                             




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007