Appeal No. 2004-0735 Page 6
Application No. 08/081,540
and presented from completely unrelated proteins, such as LIF, even if the
epitopes shared some primary sequence homology.”
There is no requirement in the claims that the nucleic acid encode a
peptide that will be processed in the same manner as the Der p VII protein
allergen. The claims simply require that the nucleic acid encode a peptide that
comprises an epitope of the Der p VII protein allergen. The examiner has
identified a murine LIF peptide that comprises a 7 amino acid region that
corresponds to a 7 amino acid region in the Der p VII protein allergen. There is
no evidence of record that this 7 amino acid region of the Der p VII protein
allergen is not an epitope as defined in appellants’ claimed invention.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by appellants’ arguments.
Claims 47 and 49:
Appellants assert (Brief, page 5, emphasis removed), “[a] B-cell specific
for a Der p VII protein allergen would not recognize a murine LIF protein since B-
cell recognition of protein allergens depends on the recognition of complex
conformational epitopes which are particular to the full-length (e.g., native)
protein allergens.” Initially, we note that there is no requirement in the claims that
the epitope is a “conformational epitope.” As the examiner points out (Answer,
page 4), “B-cell epitope[s] may be either conformational or non-
conformational/linear.” Further, there is no requirement in the claims that
antibodies specific for a Der p VII protein allergen recognize the protein encoded
by the claimed nucleic acid, in this case murine LIF protein. As discussed above,
the claims simply require that the nucleic acid encode a peptide that comprises
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007