Appeal No. 1999-1433
Application 08/453,852
... In LPS-sensitive species, TNF may play a more prominent role as a mediator
of shock. Immunization against TNF might then be expected to yield a higher
level of protection. Beutler, p. 871, paras. 2-3.
3. Kornbluth discloses the use of a monoclonal antibody specific for
TNF-" to neutralize the effects of LPS on actinomycin D-treated WEHI 164 cells (a
murine fibrosarcoma line), in vitro.
The examiner contends that the teachings of the references “render it obvious
that the adjuvant and toxic effects of the exogenous LPS are mediated through the
endogenous release of TNF because Kato et al. teach that LPS is an adjuvant and
Beutler et al. or Kornbluth et al. teach that the effects of exogenously administered LPS
is mediated through TNF.” Answer, p. 6. According to the examiner, the use of TNF as
an adjuvant would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art because
Beutler taught that LPS was an adjuvant and “one would reasonably expect that the
mediator of LPS activity would also be an adjuvant.” Id.
It is well established that the examiner has the initial burden under § 103 to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72,
223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is the examiner’s responsibility to show that
some objective teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, or knowledge generally
available in the art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
references to arrive at the claimed invention. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes
Plastics, Inc., 745 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In this
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007