Appeal No. 2001-1263 Page 6
Application No. 08/475,955
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. claims 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being non-
enabled,
II. claims 1, 2, 5, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as being
non-enabled,
III. claims 7 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite, and,
IV. claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite.
We reverse all rejections.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
As seen, claims 7-9 are directed to compositions which comprise the epitopes of
claim 1 with a pharmaceutical carrier for administration to a patient. Claim 7 requires
that the epitopes be in an effective concentration for administration to a patient to
neutralize circulating autoantibody while claim 9 requires that the pharmaceutical carrier
and concentration of sequences elicit an immune response when administered to a
host. The examiner’s reasoning in regard to this rejection is summarized at Page 4 of
the Answer where the examiner states “appellant has not disclosed how to use the
claimed polypeptides to treat autoimmune patients which are reactive to the La/SSB
epitopes. There is insufficient evidence of the invention with respect to the in vivo
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007