Ex Parte KOREN et al - Page 6


               Appeal No. 2004-2138                                                                        Page 6                  
               Application No. 08/765,324                                                                                          

               issue.”  Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481,                                 
               1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  Nonetheless, the disclosure must convey with reasonable clarity                             
               to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the invention.  See id.                          
                       The examiner set out five aspects of the claimed method that, in her opinion,                               
               were not adequately explained in the specification.  The examiner argues that the                                   
               claims contain new matter because they are not limited to monoclonal (as opposed to                                 
               polyclonal) antibodies; because they are not limited to the electrophoretic purification                            
               method disclosed in the specification; because they are not limited to the specific                                 
               solubilization method used in the specification; because they read on immunizing an                                 
               animal with a soluble lipoprotein, in addition to soluble apolipoprotein; and because the                           
               immunogen administered in the specification was not in soluble and reduced form                                     
               because it was administered while still in a polyacrylamide gel (and therefore in                                   
               insoluble form) and the specification does not disclose that the gel contained a reducing                           
               agent.                                                                                                              
                       We agree with Appellants that none of the claim limitations pointed to by the                               
               examiner renders the specification’s description inadequate.  With respect to two of the                            
               examiner’s issues, we agree with Appellants’ argument:                                                              
                       With respect to . . . polyclonal antibodies, immunization of an animal with                                 
                       an antigen will always produce polyclonal antibodies.  One must then                                        
                       isolate spleen cells and fuse these with immortal cells, which are then                                     
                       screened, for production of monoclonal antibodies.                                                          
                       With respect to the issue of “lipoprotein” versus “apolipoprotein”, any one                                 
                       skilled in the art would understand that when one delipidates a lipoprotein,                                
                       one by definition obtains an apolipoprotein.  It is therefore irrelevant                                    
                       whether one starts with a lipoprotein or an apolipoprotein, one will utilize                                
                       the same material as an antigen.                                                                            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007