Appeal No. 1996-1281
Application 07/945,295
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)/103
In rejecting claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, alternatively, under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner relies on Targoff as teaching an isolated Mi-2 protein
derived from calf thymus which binds to human autoantibodies, identified as "anti-Mi-2"
antibodies, to human Mi-2 proteins. The examiner's position appears to be that the
protein of the reference is encompassed by claim 11 since it is described as being
immunogenically reactive with a human anti-Mi-2 antibody. The examiner concludes
that this protein must inherently include at least one epitope as required by claim 11,
and, thus, must inherently include at least a portion of the amino acid sequence of the
SEQ ID NO. 2. (Answer, page 5). In explaining the obviousness aspect of the
rejection, the examiner merely argues that it would have been obvious to have used the
human autoantibodies which are immunoreactive with the Mi-2 antigen, as taught by
Targoff, to isolate the protein which contains at least one epitope of human Mi-2
antigen. (Answer, page 6).
We have reviewed both the examiner's rejection and appellants' rebuttal
arguments and evidence. However, on this record we do not find that the issues, as
presented, permit a meaningful review. In arguing their respective positions on the
issues raised by the rejection of claims 11-13 over Targoff, it does not appear that
either the examiner or appellants have considered the most relevant legal standard
appropriate for consideration of the facts presented in this appeal. Additionally, we note
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007