Appeal No. 2005-0392
Application No. 09/171,885
II. Claims 36, 39 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morgan.
We have carefully considered the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner and find ourselves in substantial agreement with that of the appellant.
Accordingly, we reverse.
Background and Discussion
As indicated by the claims above, the present invention involves the use of a pro-
drug complex which comprises a drug which is non-covalently bound to a synthetic
receptor wherein said receptor is selected from the group consisting of antibodies,
antibody fragments, oligonucleotides and oligosaccharides.
Rejection I.
The examiner argues that claims 34, 35, 37 and 38 are anticipated by Morgan.
To that end, we note that Morgan discloses conjugates which
comprise a targeting protein such as an antibody or antibody fragment, or carrier
molecule; a moiety termed a drug-binding molecule of complementary structure
(abbreviated csDBM) which is covalently bound to the antibody or carrier; and a
drug non-covalently complexed to the csDBM. In a separate configuration, [the]
drug can be first bound through covalent bonds to [the] antibody or carrier and
then complexed with a csDBM to improve the cytotoxic selectivity of the killing.
The csDBM can be found in nature and modified as necessary or specifically
designed [Morgan, col. 4, line 61- col. 5, line 4].
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.
In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Celeritas
Techs. Ltd v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007