Appeal No. 1997-2392
Application No. 08/089,990
sequence identical to that recognized by the claimed antibodies, was known in the
art at the time the claimed invention was made.”
The claimed invention, however, requires the chimeric monoclonal antibody
to not only bind “to a peptide represented by the amino acid sequence SEQ ID
NO:1 in the CD4-binding region of the gp120 of HIV-1,” but also inhibit “in vitro
infection of T cells by HTLV-IIIB.” According to the examiner (Answer, page 4) “[t]he
5C2E5 and 7F11 monoclonal antibodies taught by Lasky differ from the claimed
antibodies in that they have not been shown to inhibit infectivity of HIV-1 isolates in
vitro.” Appellants confirm this arguing (Brief, page 4) that Lasky suggest that their
“antibody does not inhibit HIV-1 infection in vitro,” and that when appellants tested
Lasky’s antibody they “determined that it does not inhibit HIV-1 infection in vitro.”5
With regard to Gilbert, the examiner finds that while Gilbert teaches that antiserum
raised against Peptide 5 neutralizes the HIV virus by preventing HIV infection and
subsequent lysis of cells, Gilbert does not teach monoclonal antibodies specific for
Peptide 5.
Nevertheless, the examiner argues (Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 6-7)
that “[i]t would have been obvious to characterize the ability of hybridomas obtained
for the production of monoclonal antibodies capable of inhibiting in vitro
HIV-1 infectivity using known methods such as those taught by Gilbert.” The
examiner reasons (Answer, page 7) that:
5 See also Davis Declaration, executed February 7, 1994 at para. 6.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007