Appeal No. 2003-1679 Page 4
Application No. 08/993,010
infection in the subject.
The examiner relies on Xiang to teach a method using Western blot to distinguish
between Type I and Type II H. pylori clinical isolates based upon VacA and CagA
expression. Answer, page 7. The examiner relies on Crabtree (Answer, page 7),
to teach “the use of a detectably labeled anti-human immunoglobulin antibodies
in an analogous art for the purpose of detecting human antibodies associated
with Helicobacter pylori infection … in subject serum samples.”
According to the examiner (id.), Figure 5, lanes 3-6 of Figura demonstrate
that Figura distinguished Type I and Type II antibodies present in human serum
samples “through specific binding of common Type II and Type I specific
antigens,” wherein lane 6 illustrates “[a]ntibodies to Type II antigens were
detected, no binding to VacA or CagA,” and lanes 3-5 illustrate “antibodies to one
or more Type I specific antigens were detected.”
Based on this evidence, the examiner finds (Answer, bridging sentence,
pages 7-8), “it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the arat [sic] the time the invention was made … to utilize detectably labeled
anti-human immunoglobulin to detect the presence or absence of human
antibodies that specifically bound to Helicobacter common and Type-I specific
antigens….”
Appellants, however, point out (Brief, page 11) that Figura “fails to
establish a definitive correlation between expression of VacA and CagA antigens
and infectivity.” In addition, appellants emphasize (id., emphasis removed),
Figura admits “that CagA and VacA expression does not necessarily correlate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007