Ex parte ARUFFO et al. - Page 14




          Appeal No. 94-1696                                                          
          Application 07/811,129                                                      


          interpret the referenced claims to include polyclonal and                   
          monoclonal antibodies which have “binding specificity for                   
          CD11a/CD18 [LFA-1].”  Accordingly, we find that the teachings of            
          Altmann, Boyd and Dustin as to anti-LFA-1 antibodies anticipate             
          the claimed invention.                                                      
               We acknowledge that claims 1 and 6 are directed to a                   
          “soluble fusion molecule,” and a “recombinant fusion molecule,”             
          respectively; however, we find no difference between the product            
          made by the appellants’ process of fusing the two claimed regions           
          and the anti-LFA-1 antibodies described by the prior art.  In re            
          Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)               
          (“The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of           
          production”).  Thus, in our opinion, the anti-LFA-1 antibodies              
          taught by the prior art are identical to the claimed product(s).            


                                    Other Issues                                      
               Upon return of this application to the corps, the examiner             
          should consider whether the 35 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph,              
          rejection as to the indefiniteness of the phrase “substantially             





                                          14                                          





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007