Appeal 2006-2945
Application 10/041,958
art at the time of Appellants’ claimed invention to modify the combination
of Krivan, Queen and Engelman to utilize an anti-SLT II α subunit antibody
or an anti-SLT II β subunit antibody in view of the respective teachings of
Perera and Williams of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against these
specific subunits (Answer 6). Again, we find no error in the Examiner’s
reasoning and conclusion.
We also find that the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made would have been motivated to produce a humanized antibody or
human monoclonal antibody “based on the advantages described by Queen .
. . and Engelman . . . (i.e., substantially decreased immunogenicity)” (id.).
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that
burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993), citation omitted. We conclude that
the Examiner has met his burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument was properly shifted to Appellants.
Appellants separately argue the claims as they relate to the following
four claim groupings: (I) claims 27-29; (II) claims 30 and 33; (III) claim 31;
and (IV) claims 32 and 34-36 (Br. 4-5; Br. 29-30). The claims within each
grouping that contains multiple claims will stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Further, notwithstanding Appellants’ failure to
address the only independent claim on Appeal (claim 26) in their claim
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013