Appeal No. 2000-1929
Application No. 08/019,297
Appellants argue that the specification’s disclosure of PAGE-purified viral
proteins, combined with the specification’s statement that “the invention concerns
all extracts of the virus, whether it be the crudest ones . . . or the more purified
ones,” would have led those skilled in the art to conclude that Appellants
contemplated using the PAGE-purified proteins as “more purified” extracts to
make the claimed antibodies and immune complexes. See the Appeal Brief,
pages 29-30.
This argument is not persuasive. The only HIV-specific antibodies
mentioned in the instant specification are those directed against p25. See page
21, lines 32-37. The specification discloses that sera from HIV-infected patients
does not contain antibodies to p36, p42, or p80. See page 8, lines 28-31 (p36,
p42, and p80 “may represent the major envelope proteins”) and page 9, lines 11-
13 (“The envelope proteins of the virus appeared as not detectable
immunologically by the patients’ sera.”). The specification does not describe
procedures for making or purifying antibodies to HIV proteins, nor does the
specification describe immune complexes comprising antibodies directed to HIV
proteins other than p25. See page 8, lines 2-5 (“A p25 protein present in the
virus-infected cells from patient 1 and LC1 cells infected with this virus was
specifically recognized by serum from patient 1.” (emphasis added)).
Thus, the specification does not convey with reasonable clarity to those of
skill in the art that Appellants were in possession of the antibodies and immune
complexes now claimed, as of the filing date of the instant application. One
18
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007