Appeal No. 1998-1987
Application No. 07/915,783
4) None showed that they had extracted and/or recovered
protective antigens.”
Appeal Brief, pages 48-49. We will address these arguments seriatim.
First, Appellant argues that Kilejian and Epstein “[u]sed a detergent to
extract parasite antigens.” It is unclear what point Appellant is trying to make;
claim 68 requires that the plasmodial antigens in the claimed composition be
solubilized using a non-ionic detergent. This argument is therefore not
persuasive.
Second, Appellant argues that neither Kilejian nor Epstein “removed
detergents from their extracts.” This argument is also unpersuasive, since claim
68 is not limited to compositions from which the detergent has been removed.
Third, Appellant argues that neither Kilejian nor Epstein “showed that the
extracted antigens were insoluble or would aggregate in insoluble form after
detergent removal.” Again, Appellant is relying on a limitation that is not present
in the claims. Claim 68 does not require that all or even any of the plasmodial
antigens themselves be water-insoluble, it requires that the overall composition
comprising the antigens be water-insoluble. This limitation is met by the
immunoprecipitates disclosed by both Kilejian and Epstein, which comprise
plasmodial antigens, antibodies, protein A, and Sepharose beads. Whether or
not the plasmodial antigens themselves are water-insoluble, the
immunoprecipitated compositions as a whole are water-insoluble, as shown by
the fact that the immunoprecipitates were recovered by centrifugation.
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007