Ex Parte KOREN et al - Page 10


               Appeal No. 2004-2138                                                                      Page 10                   
               Application No. 08/765,324                                                                                          

               desired antigen.  It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the                        
               time the invention was made to use the delipidated, reduced, carboxymethylated, and                                 
               solubilized apolipoprotein taught by Lee as the antigen in Goding’s method of making                                
               monoclonal antibodies.  Motivation to combine the references is provided by Lee, which                              
               teaches that the apolipoprotein that Lee used to raise antibodies is the major protein                              
               component of LDL, which is the principal carrier of cholesterol in the circulation (page                            
               134, left-hand column); antibodies to the apolipoprotein would therefore have been                                  
               expected to be useful in quantitating serum LDL levels.  Those skilled in the art would                             
               have been motivated to use Goding’s methods of making monoclonal antibodies                                         
               because such methods allow “a virtually unlimited supply of identical antibodies.”                                  
               Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1369, 231 USPQ 81, 82                                
               (Fed. Cir. 1987).  Thus, the method of claim 49 would have been obvious to those                                    
               skilled in the art at the time of the invention.                                                                    
                       The above rejections are basically the same as those made earlier in prosecution                            
               by the examiner.  See the Office action mailed January 30, 2001.  In response to these                              
               rejections, Appellants argued that Lee’s method differs from the one claimed because                                
               Lee “does not immunize an animal with the delipidated, decarboxymethylated [sic],                                   
               reduced apolipoprotein.  He has removed the reducing agents from the apolipoprotein.                                
               In contrast, . . .  applicants immunized with the delipidated, decarboxymethylated [sic],                           
               reduced apolipoprotein from which the degraded and complexed materials had been                                     
               removed.”  Appellants’ response to the Final Office action, received September 4, 2001.                             
                       The examiner withdrew the prior art-based rejections, but we believe they should                            
                                                                                                                                   
               2 Goding, Monoclonal Antibodies:  Principles and Practice, pp. 56-97, Academic Press, Inc. (1983).                  





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007