Appeal No. 2003-1417 Page 7
Application No. 09/298,404
requires binding to the specified polypeptide without substantial binding to any
other polypeptide. Thus, any antibody that binds to each of Nsp1, Nsp2, and
Nsp3 is outside the scope of claims 60, 61, and 62. The rejection for anticipation
is reversed.
3. Obviousness
The examiner rejected most of the claims as obvious over the prior art.
Each of the obviousness rejections was based on the examiner’s position that
Frackelton disclosed antibodies meeting all the limitations of the independent
claims. However, we have concluded that Frackelton does not disclose
antibodies that specifically bind Nsp1, Nsp2, or Nsp3. The examiner has pointed
to nothing in the secondary references that would meet this limitation of the
claims. We therefore reverse the rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Summary
The prior art relied on by the examiner does not teach antibodies that
specifically bind to SEQ ID NO:1, SEQ ID NO:3, or SEQ ID NO:5 (Nsp1, Nsp2, or
Nsp3, respectively). We therefore reverse the rejections for anticipation and
obviousness. However, we affirm the rejection for obviousness-type double
patenting.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007