Appeal No. 1999-2634
Application No. 08/108,606
With respect to separately argued claims 15 and 18, we note particularly the
evidence provided in the disclosure of Svennerholm, that the anti-LT immune response
is mainly against the B subunit portion of the molecule which cross-reacts immuno-
logically with the B subunits of cholera toxin, and the recognition that candidate
vaccines should thus, contain a combination of bacterial cell-derived and toxin-derived
antigens. Svennerholm, page 197.
In view of the discussion above, we find that the examiner has presented a prima
facie case of obviousness of the invention of claims 13-15, 18 and 19 which has not
been overcome with appropriate evidence by appellants.
CONCLUSION
The examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8, 10 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103
over Evans 1 in view of Svennerholm, and Soderlind or Gregory and Myers; the
rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 over Evans 1 in view of Svennerholm, and
Soderlind or Gregory and Myers in further view of Evans 2; and the rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 over Evans 1 in view of Svennerholm, and Soderlind or Gregory
and Myers in further view of Evans 3 are reversed. The rejection of claims 13-15, 18
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 over Evans 1 in view of Svennerholm, and Soderlind or
Gregory and Myers is affirmed.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007