Appeal No. 2001-0758 Page 7
Application No. 08/919,477
aminopolycarboxylate-appended peptide. Barbet describes two separate diagnostic or
therapeutic reagents designed to work together upon simultaneous or sequential
injection. The first reagent is a bivalent conjugate “comprising an antibody . . . having
an affinity for a particular cell type . . . coupled to an antibody . . . having an affinity for a
given hapten.” Barbet, column 6, lines 4-10. The second is “a synthetic molecule
comprising at least two haptens and [ ] at least one site, suitable for radioactive labelling
bound in covalent manner.” Id., column 6, lines 10-14. An example of this second
reagent is the aminopolycarboxylate-appended peptide, N-"-DTPA-tyrosyl-N-,-DTPA-
lysine, discussed above. The first reagent binds its target cell through the antibody
“having an affinity for a particular cell type,” and also binds the second reagent through
the antibody “having an affinity for a given hapten.” In our view, the only reasonable
interpretation of the reference is that the bond between the hapten-specific antibody of
the first reagent and the hapten of the second reagent is a non-covalent
immunospecific interaction “at the level of one of [the antibody’s] binding sites.” Barbet,
column 1, line 52.
Under these circumstances, we see no nexus between Barbet and Adams - thus,
we see no basis for the examiner’s conclusion that “it would have been obvious . . . to
utilize a linker, as disclosed in [Adams], to modify the Barbet aminopolycarboxylate-
appended peptides.”
CONCLUSION
As stated above, this board serves as a board of review, rather than a de novo
examination tribunal (35 U.S.C. § 6(b)). Here, we find that the incomplete, inconsistent
analysis of the claims, and the inaccurate analysis of the prior art, preclude meaningful
review. Accordingly, we vacate the rejection of record and remand the case to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007