Ex parte ROOK et al. - Page 6




                   Appeal No. 1998-0968                                                                                                                             
                   Application No. 08/031,075                                                                                                                       
                   against group A streptococci cell walls would recognize other determinants, and would not                                                        
                   bind N-acetylglucosamine, no matter how presented.  The relevant question is whether                                                             
                   most (or any) monoclonal antibodies recognizing both the terminal N-acetylglucosamine on                                                         
                   group A streptococcus and N-acetylglucosamine conjugated to BSA (as is the case with                                                             
                   Nahm’s antibody) would “not have the properties of the monoclonal antibodies of the                                                              
                   present invention (the ability to bind mammalian cells or membranes . . . containing                                                             
                   terminal N-acetylglucosamine).”  The declaration does not address this point.                                                                    
                            In our opinion, neither of appellants’ arguments is particularly compelling.  On the                                                    
                   other hand, it cannot be said that the extrinsic evidence relied on by the examiner                                                              
                   establishes that HGAC-1 necessarily possesses all the binding properties required by the                                                         
                            6                                                                                                                                       
                   claims.   Inasmuch as “[t]he Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis                                                   
                   for its rejection,” and “we may not resolve doubts in favor of the Patent Office determination                                                   

                            6We note that the examiner, although relying on a theory of inherency, did not                                                          
                   invoke the principles of In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-434 (CCPA                                                            
                   1977):                                                                                                                                           
                            Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or                                                                     
                            substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical                                                        
                            processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art                                                                 
                            products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his                                                            
                            claimed product . . . . Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35                                                          
                            U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or                                                            
                            alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced                                                           
                            by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare                                                                 
                            prior art products [footnote omitted].                                                                                                  
                            Nevertheless, we take no position on whether the facts of this case, as developed                                                       
                   on this record, justify shifting the burden of proof to appellants.                                                                              
                                                                                 6                                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007