Appeal No. 1996-2013
Application No. 07/935,695
DISCUSSION
Claim 1, directed to a dimer or multimer of single chain polypeptides, represents
the invention in its broadest aspect; each single chain polypeptide comprises two antigen
binding portions from the variable domains of monoclonal antibody CC49 linked through a
peptide linker, and each dimer or multimer comprises non-covalently linked single chain
polypeptides. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and specifies that each single chain
polypeptide comprises an antigen binding portion from the light chain variable domain of
CC49 linked to an antigen binding portion from the heavy chain variable domain of CC49.
Claim 21 is directed to a method of making a dimer or multimer corresponding to that of
claim 1.
There are two rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103; Huston is the primary reference in
each. We will discuss the rejections together because we view the interpretation of Huston
as dispositive of the issues raised by this appeal, and we agree with appellants that “a
misunderstanding has occurred with respect to [this] reference” (Brief, page 7).
According to the examiner, Huston teaches “the production of dimeric single chain
antibody fragments which are non-covalently dimerized, wherein the individual heavy and
light chains are linked through a peptide linker” (Examiner’s Answer, page 4, emphasis
added). Huston discloses a polypeptide called a biosynthetic antibody binding site
(BABS). We agree with the examiner that Huston’s BABS, like appellants’ single chain
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007