Appeal No. 2002-2209 Page 9
Application No. 08/137,168
Polyvalent antivenom can be made either by a) immunizing with a
venom cocktail or b) immunizing with single venoms and mixing two or
more monovalent antivenoms. In either case, the reactivity of the
subpopulation(s) determine the spectrum of reactivity of the population,
i.e. the antivenom. Importantly, whether monovalent or polyvalent, the
purification of the present invention allows for the quantitative retention in
the purified antivenom of the spectrum of reactivity of the unpurified
antivenom.
Id., column 17, lines 52-61. In describing that the polyvalent antivenom of that invention
may be made by “mixing two or more monovalent antivenoms,” Carroll is describing the
subject matter of claim 37 on appeal. Thus, claim 37 lacks novelty.
This finding of lack of novelty is also supported by the two references relied upon
by appellant in pursuing this appeal, i.e., Theakston and Christensen. Theakston is a
chapter in a book directed to therapeutic antibodies that is co-authored by the present
appellant, D.C. Smith. While Theakston was published in 1995 and, thus, is not prior art
to claim 37, much of the work described in Theakston is prior art to claim 37. Of
particular interest is one reference cited in Theakston relied upon by appellant in
pursuing his position on appeal, i.e., Christensen. Specifically, Theakston states “[i]t is
assumed that polyspecific antisera should be produced by immunization of animals with
a mixture of venoms rather than by mixing of monospecific antivenoms, as the latter
method was thought to result in dilution of each component (Christensen 1966a); this,
however, may not be true in all cases (see ‘Antivenom composition’, p. 123).”
Theakston, page 111. Turning to the antivenom composition section Theakston
referenced in this passage, Theakston states:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007