Ex parte REYES et al. - Page 8




              Appeal No. 1997-0473                                                                                       
              Application No. 07/870,985                                                                                 
                     the isolation of ET-NANBH, a.k.a., HEV or Hepatitis E Virus, as well as the                         
                     development of experimental animals which are known to develop sera                                 
                     against the virus. . . [and notes] that antibodies which had been raised in                         
                     both humans and in the primate models, in response to an ET-NANBH                                   
                     (HEV) infection, was purified.                                                                      
              The examiner concludes that (Answer, page 11):                                                             
                     one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made would                        
                     have clearly been motivated to have utilized the sera produced by the                               
                     monkeys taught by Bradley et alii, [sic] for a passive immunotherapy as                             
                     disclosed by Cohen.  Give [sic, Given] that Cohen teaches the development                           
                     and use of passive therapy for a number of virally caused disease, including                        
                     two types of hepatitis, the ordinary skilled artisan would have had a                               
                     reasonable expectation of success.                                                                  
              It is sufficient for the purposes of this appeal to note that neither Bradley or Cohen                     
              describes, suggests or speculates on the possibility of developing a vaccine for HEV                       
              using antibodies capable of neutralizing HEV infection as required by the claims on                        
              appeal.  As stated by appellants (Brief, paragraph bridging pages 8-9):                                    
                     Bradley, et al., do not teach any characterized sera, much less any specific                        
                     epitopes of HEV, sequences or methods of identifying epitopes capable of                            
                     generating neutralizing antibodies.  And of course, Bradley, et al, do not                          
                     teach that an antibody which is immunoreactive with a peptide containing the                        
                     C-terminal 48 amino acids of the capsid protein encoded by the second                               
                     open reading frame of the HEV genome is effective at neutralizing HEV or                            
                     preventing HEV infection.                                                                           
                     The examiner has not provided any evidence which would reasonably link the                          
              antibody vaccines described by Cohen with the sera generated antibodies of Bradley.  In                    
              the absence of such evidence, the only suggestion to formulate a composition for the                       
              treatment and prevention of HEV infection in an individual, such as claimed in claim 15, is                


                                                           8                                                             





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007