Appeal No. 1996-1002
Application 07/988,945
of the teaching of Takeshita et. al., that a combination of these antibodies
was useful in inhibiting IL-2 dependant cell proliferation and further in view
of the teaching of Kupiec Weglinski et. al. that IL-2 targeted
immunotherapy would be useful in treating acute allograft rejections (see
abstract). One skill in the art would have expected to isolate hybridomas
producing anti-IL-2R$ and anti-IL-2R" antibodies having similar or
identical characteristics to those of of (sic) antibodies recited in the claims.
(Emphasis added).
It is the initial burden of the patent examiner to establish that claims presented in
an application for patent are unpatentable. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We have carefully considered the evidence and
discussion in support of the rejection presented by the examiner. However, a fair
evaluation of the references, applicants' specification and consideration of the claimed
subject matter as a whole, dictates a conclusion that the examiner has failed to provide
the factual basis which would reasonably support a prima facie case of unpatentability
of the subject matter of claims 18-22. Claims 18-22 are directed to compositions which,
in addition to a monoclonal antibody which specifically binds to the high affinity IL-2R"
chain, must include one of two deposited monoclonal antibodies, designated as C68/41
and A23A41, which specifically bind to the high affinity IL-2R$ chain. While, the prior
art, relied upon by the examiner, could reasonably be read to suggest combining a
monoclonal antibody which would bind to the IL-2R" chain with a monoclonal antibody
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007