Appeal No. 2002-0616 Page 3
Application No. 08/693,052
Claims 1, 5, 11 15 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the combination of Gupta, Richards, Masihi, Stünkel, Penney, Weismüller and
Ramasamy. After careful review of the record and consideration of the issue
before us, we reverse.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1, 5, 11 15 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the combination of Gupta, Richards, Masihi, Stünkel, Penney, Weismüller and
Ramasamy.
Gupta is relied upon for teaching that adjuvants are well known in the art,
and for teaching the use of combinations of adjuvants, specifically, “ that the
incorporation of MPL into liposomes along with recombinant antigen and mixed
with alum stimulated a high antibody response to the antigen with no pyrogenicity
or toxicity in humans.” Examiner’s Answer, page 5. The rejection acknowledges
that “Gupta does not teach the particular claimed combination of adjuvants of the
class of mineral salts with adjuvants of the class of glycosylamides, or octadecyl
esters of aromatic amino acids, or the recited lipopeptides.” Id.
Richards, according to the rejection, “teaches adjuvant effects of
liposomes, lipid A, and aluminum hydroxide (alum) are additive or synergistic,
and results in the strongest immunization antibody response when compared to
liposome alone, alum-adsorbed liposome, or liposome containing A.” Id. at 5-6.
Masihi is cited for teaching that the combination of adjuvants MPL and
trehalose dimycolate resulted in complete protection against lethal influenza
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007