Appeal No. 2000-0839
Application No. 08/355,502
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered appellants’
specification and claims, in addition to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner’s Answer2 for the
examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejections. We further reference appellants’
Brief3, and Reply Brief4 for the appellants’ arguments in favor of patentability. We
note the examiner entered and considered appellants’ Reply Brief.5
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 8-10:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 4) Capon teach:
chimeric proteins for directing ligand binding partners such as
growth factors, hormones or effector molecules to cells bearing
ligands for the ligand binding partners comprising a ligand
binding partners fused to a stable plasma protein which is
capable of extending the in vivo half-life of the loigand binding
partner when present as a fusion with the ligand binding
partner, in particular wherein such a stable plasma protein is
an immunoglobulin constant domain.
While the examiner does not expressly recognize this fact, Capon does not
teach IL-10. The examiner applies Mosmann to make up for this deficiency in
Capon. According to the examiner (Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 4-5)
2 Paper No. 26, mailed October 14, 1999.
3 Paper No. 25, received September 14, 1999.
4 Paper No. 28, received December 6, 1999.
5 Paper No. 29, mailed February 22, 2000.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007