Ex Parte BLACKBURN et al - Page 12


                Appeal No.  2003-0480                                                  Page 12                
                Application No.  08/090245                                                                    
                of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, would have easily           
                concluded that the catalytic properties of a catalytic antibody would be easily               
                disrupted via the chemical or physical immobilization process.”  In support of this           
                argument, appellants argue (id.):                                                             
                      It is generally accepted in the art that specific binding (e.g., antigen-               
                      antibody binding) allows a certain level of flexibility while chemical                  
                      catalysis requires sub-angstom precision in the position of the key                     
                      amino acid residues in the catalytic site.  The change in the                           
                      antibody structure on immobilization can make functional groups                         
                      inaccessible, modified, or improperly positioned for the catalysis.                     
                      Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a                             
                      reasonable expectation of success with respect to the use of                            
                      immobilized catalytic antibodies as sensors.                                            
                      We note that in their Reply Brief, appellants’ rely on Stryer2 to shore these           
                arguments.  Notwithstanding appellants’ reliance on Stryer and their argument                 
                that it could in theory be possible to disrupt the catalytically active portion of a          
                catalytic antibody by immobilization, we are compelled to agree with the                      
                examiner (Answer, page 11) that Schochetman, which issued after the Stryer                    
                publication, discloses that catalytic antibodies can be immobilized on support                
                materials.  As the examiner points out (Answer, page 11), “[a]ppellant’s [sic]                
                assertion is unaccompanied by evidence….”  We remind appellants that                          
                obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success.  For                         
                obviousness under §103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of                   
                success.  In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir.                  
                1988).  In our opinion, the evidence relied upon by the examiner provides a                   
                person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.                 
                                                                                                              
                2 (Stryer) Biochemistry pp. 893-895 (L. Stryer, ed., W.H. Freeman and Company, New York,      
                1988).                                                                                        





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007