Appeal No. 95-2710
Application 08/011,837
art to bind sperm cells in semen, but have not admitted that
pan semen antibodies were known which bind to and trap all
cells and pathogens in semen (brief, page 11). Appellants’
argument is not well taken in view of the fact that the
antibodies used by appellants were known by and obtained from
others (specification, page 12, lines 14-36). Appellants also
argue that they have not admitted that methods were known to
apply a pan semen antibody into the vaginal cavity or uterus
or to skin surfaces or mucus epithelial surfaces (brief, page
11).
The examiner argues that Isojima teaches that H6-3C4,
which is one of the antibodies recited in appellants’ claims
59-61, was known in the art to immobilize sperm and cause
contraception, and that agglutination of pathogenic cells
would be inherent with the administration of the antibody
(answer, page 4). Appellants argue that Isojima does not
disclose an antibody that binds to cells other than sperm
cells or to pathogens in semen (brief, page 12). Appellants’
argument is not persuasive because Isojima discloses H6-3C4
(page 67) which, appellants state (specification, page 17,
lines 30-33), agglutinates virtually all cells present in
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007