Appeal No. 1997-2368
Application 08/158,782
bind to markers which are associated with cancer cells in order to enhance their
therapeutic effect. (Id.) The examiner relies on Brennan to provide that which is missing
from the other three references and urges that Brennan teaches “the technology for
chemically linking antibodies together to produce a plurality of antibodies having different
antigen binding sites.” (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 5-6).
The examiner then concludes (Answer, page 6):
The benefit of linking antibodies to each other is obvious over
Brennan, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able
to produce a conjugate by chemically linking a plurality (two) of
antibodies together to enhance specific and effective targeting
of different antigens of the same specie of pathogen (Brennan)
which could then be linked to an agent,
such as a radioisotope or cytotoxic agent for use as a
diagnostic or therapeutic agent, as taught by Rodwell and
Goldenberg, for the obvious benefit of targeting a plurality of
different epitopes of the same specie of pathogen or different
antigens expressed at different stages of the life cycle of said
pathogen, as taught by Holder. One of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to produce such a plurality of
chemically linked antibody conjugates to be used in the
claimed method of targeting, based on a combination of the
cited references, as the benefit for targeting and therapy is
exemplified and the claimed method fails to teach any novelty
over what the references specifically teach.
What is missing from the examiner's statements in support of this rejection is any
reference to facts or evidence which would have directed one of ordinary skill in this art, at
the time of the invention, to use the chemically linked antibodies of Brennan in the
therapeutic methodology of Rodwell or Goldenberg ('525). As stated by appellants (Reply
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007