Appeal No. 1997-3542
Application No. 08/192,507
3. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Julius and Kung, taken with Lambert and Taylor.
4. Claims 3, 4, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Julius and Kung,
taken with Lambert and Taylor and further in view of De Clercq.
5. Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Julius and Kung, taken
with Lambert and Taylor, as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11-13, 16 and 17, and further in
view of Brady.
DECISION ON APPEAL
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The specification is objected to and claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35
1, 2
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for lack of enablement.
In the present case, the rejected claims are directed to an anti-IgM antibody
conjugate wherein the antibody portion of the conjugate is produced from specific
hybridoma, i.e., 2G10 (claim 3) and 1C2 (claim 14). It is the examiner’s position that the
methods set forth in the specification will not necessarily reproduce antibodies and
hybridomas which are chemically and structurally identical to those claimed. Furthermore,
1The Answer has withdrawn a rejection of claims 5, 7, 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph for lack of enablement. Answer, page 3.
2The Answer, page 8 contains a typographical error, and inaccurately indicates
claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for lack of enablement
instead of claims 3 and 14, as set forth in the final rejection, Paper No. 5, page 2.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007