Appeal No. 2002-0616 Page 7
Application No. 08/693,052
pyrogenicity or toxicity in humans.” Gupta, page 299. But Gupta also teaches
that liposomes prolong the clearance of antigens, and the use of “consisting
essentially of” in the claims excludes the use of liposomes, and there is no
general teaching of the use of a mixture of two adjuvants.
Richards teaches that the combined effects of liposomes, lipid A and
ALUM may induce antibody responses greater than those induced by ALUM
alone, see Richards, page 685, and that “the adjuvant effects of liposomes, lipid
A, and ALUM were additive or synergistic,” abstract. Again, there is no general
teaching of the use of a mixture of two adjuvants.
Masihi, as recognized by the rejection, teaches that the combination of
adjuvants MPL and trehalose dimycolate (TDM) resulted in complete protection
against lethal influenza virus infection, while the use of each adjuvant alone was
ineffective. See Masihi, abstract. The reference teaches that “[b]inding of MPL
by the hydroxyl groups of TDM which remain anchored to the squalane droplet
by embedded mycolic acid chains may prolong the retention of MPL and induce
a persistent stimulation of the host system for a longer duration.” Id. at 344.
Therefore, each of the references relied upon by the examiner as
teaching a combination of adjuvants, and thus providing motivation to arrive at
the claimed combination of adjuvants, are drawn to a specific combination of
adjuvants, and do not provide motivation to combine other adjuvants. In
addition, as pointed out by appellants, Stünkel and Penney suggest using the
adjuvants they describe in the place of mineral salt adjuvants, and thus teach
away from the claimed combination.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007