Appeal No. 2000-1929
Application No. 08/019,297
Claims 30 and 42 are limited to immune complexes comprising HIV p25
protein and an antibody against p25. The specification discloses that, “[i]n order
to determine which viral antigen was recognized by antibodies present in the
patient’s sera, several immunoprecipitation experiments were carried out.” Page
7, lines 20-22. These experiments showed that a “p25 protein present in the
virus-infected cells from patient 1 and LC1 cells infected with this virus was
specifically recognized by serum from patient 1.” Id., page 8, lines 2-5. That is,
the viral p25 protein was recognized (bound) by antibodies in the serum of HIV-
infected patient 1. As Appellants argue, this disclosure is sufficient to convey
that those skilled in the art were in possession of immune complexes comprising
the p25 protein of HIV and an antibody against that protein. We therefore
reverse the rejection of claims 30 and 42 on the basis of inadequate written
description.
The rest of the claims subject to this rejection read on antibodies against
HIV proteins other than p25 (including p15, p36, p42, and p80), or immune
complexes comprising such antibodies. As discussed above, the HIV proteins
other than p25 recited in the instant claims are discussed by the specification
only in passing. The specification indicates that, at the time the instant
application was filed, Appellants were unsure even whether the other proteins
were derived from HIV. See the specification, page 8, lines 21-31:
The viral origin of other proteins seen in polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis of purified virus is more difficult to assess. A p15
protein could be seen after silver staining. . . . In the higher MW
range, a contamination of the virus by cellular proteins, either inside
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007