Appeal No. 2001-1263 Page 8
Application No. 08/475,955
autoimmune disease through the use of a synthetic peptide.” Thus, we do not see that
Wraith read in its entirety aids the examiner’s case.
We reach the same conclusion in regard to the examiner’s reliance upon Tisch.
The examiner has relied upon a very limited portion of the document and does not
appear to have considered the document as a whole. Tisch only states that it is
possible that administering an antigen/peptide after pathogenic T cells have been
activated may have an immunizing effect and exacerbate the disease condition. The
examiner has not explained why this potential difficulty necessarily leads to a conclusion
that claims 7 through 9 are non-enabled. It is not unusual for pharmaceutical
compositions to have attendant side affects or not work in their intended manner for
every patient. We do not find the portion of Tisch relied upon by the examiner in and of
itself establishes that claims 7 through 9 are non-enabled.
Finally, we reach the same conclusion in regard to the examiner’s reliance on
Kaliyaperumal. As understood, the examiner relies upon that portion of Kaliyaperumal
which indicates that peptide autoepitopes when administered to lupus mice in vivo
induce the development of severe lupus nephritis. However, the examiner has not
favored the record with any analysis as to the nature of the peptide autoepitopes
administered in Kaliyaperumal and those which have been examined on the merits in
this application. Absent a more fact-based explanation as to the relevance of the
reference, we do not find that it establishes a case of non-enablement.
Rejection II
We also reverse the examiner’s enablement rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 10, and
11. As seen from claim 1 on appeal, the claimed linear epitopes are defined in two
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007