Ex Parte Tzipori et al - Page 13

                  Appeal  2006-2945                                                                                            
                  Application 10/041,958                                                                                       
                          Further, when Perera is considered in the context of the combination                                 
                  of prior art relied upon by the Examiner, we find that a person of ordinary                                  
                  skill in the art would have understood that Perera’s antibodies, which are                                   
                  capable of neutralizing the toxicity of the SLT II toxin, would be useful in                                 
                  the method taught by Krivan, as would human or humanized variants of                                         
                  Perera’s antibodies.                                                                                         
                          Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ intimation that                                     
                  simply because Perera does not teach a therapeutic use for his antibodies, a                                 
                  person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand Perera’s contribution                               
                  to the combination of references relied upon.  It is proper to “take account of                              
                  the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art                                 
                  would employ.”  KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82                                     
                  USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).  See also id. At 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1397 (“A                                          
                  person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an                                     
                  automaton.”).                                                                                                
                          Further, while Appellants assert that Perera “suggests that antibodies                               
                  to subunits of Stx2 are not as effective as antibodies to Stx1,” they fail to                                
                  explain what they intend by “effective” or identify the specific portion of                                  
                  Perera that supports this assertion.  Accordingly, it is unclear if Appellants’                              
                  assertion is based on a correct or fair reading of Perera.  Nevertheless,                                    
                  because Appellants do not direct attention to any particular portion of Perera                               
                  which supports their assertion, we are unable to evaluate Appellants’                                        
                  assertion in the context of Perera’s teaching.  In the absence of a contextual                               
                  basis in Perera to evaluate Appellants’ assertion, we do not find it                                         
                  persuasive.                                                                                                  



                                                              13                                                               

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013