Appeal No. 95-1231
Application No. 07/689,215
125
3) Bing uses competitive binding with I-C1q rather than a direct binding assay
for C1r; and
4) Bing uses crossed immunoelectrophoresis for determining the activation of C3a
rather than a specific antibody binding to assay for C4a.
Wagner is relied upon by the examiner to establish the equivalence of the
complement activation products C3a, C4a and C5a, all of which are released during the
complement "classical pathway" activation. Wagner is said to also disclose the use of
immunoassay for detection and quantifying of each of these products.
Ziccardi is relied upon by the examiner to establish as being old, an
immunochemical test to assess the level of antigenically detectable C1r by radial
immunodiffusion.
We have carefully considered the evidence and discussion in support of the
rejection presented by the examiner. But on reflection and consideration of the claimed
subject matter as a whole and the references relied upon, we find that the construction of
the claimed method from the prior art teachings requires too much picking and choosing
from the references cited to reach the claimed method in the absence of a clear
suggestion to do so. While we agree that Bing is concerned with evaluating the safety of
immunoglobulin products intended for administration to a patient, too many aspects of the
Bing disclosure must be modified or a substitution made to reach the claimed method. To
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, there must be more than the demonstrated
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007