Appeal No. 2006-0624 Page 7
Application No. 10/096,127
Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We
find that the examiner has met his burden, and the rejection is affirmed.
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine the cited
references. See Appeal Brief, page 5. According to appellants, the references
do not attempt to solve the same problem, the teachings of the references would
not motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to treat psoriasis, and the knowledge
of the ordinary artisan would not provide motivation unless combined with
improper hindsight. See Appeal Brief, pages 6-16.
With respect to the problem to be solved, appellants assert that the
problem solved by Queen is the development of humanized antibodies;
Ashkenazi is drawn to the prophylaxis or treatment of inflammatory bowel
disease; Novick is drawn to finding ways to eliminate or antagonize the
undesirable activities of IFN-gamma; and Tomassi is drawn to reducing the
immunogenicity of antibodies in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. See id.
at 6-7. None of the references, appellants argue, is drawn to the treatment of
psoriasis. The only mention of treating psoriasis is in Novick and Ashkenazi,
which teach that IFN-gamma was found to cause exacerbation of autoimmune
diseases such as multiple sclerosis and psoriasis. See id. at 7.
With respect to appellants’ argument that the teachings of the references
would not motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to treat psoriasis, appellants
contend that although Queen teaches that antibodies to gamma interferon may
be effective in treating other immune diseases, the reference does not teach
treatment of psoriasis. See id. at 7-8. In fact, appellants argue, Ashkenazi I and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007