Appeal No. 2002-0253
Application No. 09/093,450
monoclonal antibodies, chimeric antibodies, anti-idiotypic antibodies ... as well as
fragments, regions or derivatives thereof”); anti-TNF peptides; etc. Le, col. 9,
line 51-col. 10, line 11; Aggarwal, col. 3, line 53- col 5, line 67.
As indicated by the claims above, the appellants’ specification discloses a
method of treating rheumatoid arthritis which comprises using therapeutically-effective
amounts of a TNF" antagonist and cyclosporin, a known immunosuppressive agent.
Discussion
I. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
The examiner argues that Aggarwal discloses a method of treating rheumatoid
arthritis using therapeutically-effective amounts of TNF" antibodies in conjunction with
cyclosporin. Answer, p. 2. Accordingly, the examiner finds that Aggarwal anticipates
the claimed invention.
In response, the appellants contend that Aggarwal does not describe the claimed
methods with sufficient specificity to render the claims anticipated. Brief, pp. 8 and 9.
According to the appellants, Aggarwal provides too many variables from which it would
be necessary to choose in order to arrive at the present invention. Id., p. 9. The
appellants rely on In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962), for
support. We find these arguments unpersuasive.
It is well established that anticipation requires that each and every limitation set
forth in a claim be present, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007