Ex Parte NEUBERGER et al - Page 7



             Appeal No. 1999-1355                                                              Page 7                
             Application No. 08/469,786                                                                              
             Obviousness                                                                                             
                    All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  With respect                  
             to claims 35-41, the examiner relies on Neuberger, Cabilly and Hopp as evidence of                      
             obviousness; with respect to claims 42-47, the examiner relies on Neuberger and Hopp.                   
                    Neuberger and Cabilly are cited principally to establish that recombinant                        
             antibodies were known in the art at the time of the invention.  Neither reference                       
             describes antibody-non-antibody hybrid proteins, and the examiner relies on Hopp as                     
             evidence that “the production of hybrid proteins was known in the art.”  Answer, page                   
             11.  According to the examiner, Hopp “teach[es] the synthesis of hybrid proteins                        
             including antibodies . . . and for example, toxic proteins . . . by recombinant DNA                     
             techniques” and “also disclose[s] vectors encoding identification peptides and cleavable                
             linker sequences that facilitate[ ] purification of desired proteins.”  Id.2                            
                    In the examiner’s opinion, it would have been obvious “to have modified the                      
             teachings of either [Neuberger or Cabilly] by transfecting cells with vectors containing                
             hybrid immunoglobulin genes as taught by [Hopp] in order to obtain bifunctional                         
             chimeric antibodies containing as part of that antibody, an identification peptide where                
             any peptide protein is an identification peptide.”  Answer, page 11.                                    
                    “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of                     
             obviousness.  Only if that burden is met does the burden of coming forward with                         


                    2 The examiner’s wording here is somewhat misleading - Hopp does not disclose                    
             antibody-toxin hybrids, rather, the reference describes hybrids between “selected                       
             proteins” and “identification peptides.”  The selected protein portion of the hybrid may                
             be an antibody or a toxin, but the reference does not describe an antibody connected to                 
             a toxin - instead, each is connected to an identification peptide.  See, e.g., column 5,                
             lines 9-15 and column 6, lines 55-58.                                                                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007