Appeal No. 2001-1048
Application No. 08/121,105
(Id.) However, to be clear, LaRosa’s phrase “different ligand binding specificities”
refers to the ability of the receptor to bind IL-8, MGSA/GRO and NAP-2.
With regard to appellants’ claim limitation requiring the antibody to interact
with residues of a peptide on the NH2-terminal extracellular domain of IL-8 receptor
2, LaRosa finds (page 25404, bridging sentence, columns 1-2) “that the affinity for
IL-8 is not determined by the specific amino acid sequence of the NH2 terminus,
however, our data does not exclude a role of the NH2 terminus on the formation of
the high affinity binding site.” From this, appellants urge (Brief, page 10) that “[t]his
finding would discourage one skilled in the art from making antibodies to the amino
terminus.”
In response, the examiner argues (Answer, page 8) that:
LaRosa has demonstrated that IL8R2 binds IL8, MGSA/GRO
and NAP-2; and that a fusion of IL8R2-IL8R1 bound IL8,
MGSA/GRO and NAP-2; and that a fusion of IL8R1-IL8R2
weakly bound MGSA/GRO; one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that the only molecule which did not bind
MGSA/GRO with high affinity was the molecule missing the
NH2 terminus of the 4Ab (IL8R2) molecule. In view that [sic]
LaRosa et al[.] set forth that IL8 binding for [sic] IL8R2 is
competed by MGSA/GRO and NAP-2, and that the molecule
lacking the NH2 terminus of IL8R2 did not bind MGSA/GRO
with as high an affinity, one of skill in the art would be motivated
to elicit an antibody towards the NH2 terminus peptides of
IL8R2.
As we understand it, the examiner’s argument is that since LaRosa teaches
the NH2 terminus determines the receptor’s ability to bind IL-8, MGSA/GRO and
NAP-2, a person of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily be motivated to elicit
anti-IL8R2 NH2 terminus peptide antibodies to competitively inhibit IL8 binding of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007