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