Appeal No. 2000-0461 Page 5
Application No. 08/460,569
complex. This solitary indication, however, is contradicted by [the] rest of
Sharma’s specification, as well as by the claims.” With reference to Sharma’s
figures and the description of the figures, appellants argue (Brief, page 12), “a
mistake was made by Sharma when the formal drawings were filed….”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 15), Sharma’s prosecution history provides
“additional evidence that Sharma’s constructs would not work for their intended
purpose if they included MHC class I molecules in place of class II molecules….”
Appellants also argue that during the prosecution of Sharma’s application, the
examiner found that “[t]he claims are broadly drawn to MHC components. It is
unclear that complexes comprising MHC-I have utility. It is suggested that the
claims be limited to MHC-II molecules or that Applicant file evidence of the utility
of such bimolecular complexes where the MHC component is MHC-I.” According
to appellants (Brief, page 16) “Sharma did not present the evidence required by
… [the examiner] to show that the broad claims were enabled. Instead, the
claims were ‘limited to MHC Class II molecules associated with autoimmune
diseases….’”
With regard to the textual portions of the specification (e.g., columns 4
and 5) upon which the examiner relies, we agree with appellants (Brief, page 10)
that the disclosure provided in Sharma fails to support the conclusion that
Sharma teaches MHC Class I-containing complexes. At best the disclosure
found in columns 4 and 5 of Sharma merely provide a description of the MHC
class I molecule. In our opinion, when Figure 1 is interpreted in the context of
Sharma’s disclosure and prosecution history, one of ordinary skill in the art would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007