Appeal No. 2004-1259
Application No. 09/832,355
therein.
Moreover, the examiner indicates in the rejection under 35 U.S.C.§ 102 that
“Angiopoietin is known in the art to reduce [vessel] permeability”, meeting the limitations
of claim 17. Answer, page 13. We do not find the examiner has established a prima
facie case of lack of enablement supported by sufficient argument or evidence. As we
have found that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of lack of
enablement in the first instance, we do not reach appellants’ evidence in support of
enablement. The rejection of claim 17 for lack of enablement is reversed.
From the above, it would appear that the specification reasonably describes
products having the claimed properties. The rejection of claim 17 for lack of written
description is reversed.
35 U.S.C. §102(a)
Claims 1-4, 9, 16-19, 32-34, 39-40 and 43-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(a), as anticipated by Davis.
The examiner argues that (Answer, page 13):
Davis [ ] disclose fusion proteins comprising the receptor binding domains
of two ligands, which ligands may be the same or different, as well as
multimers thereof. Preferred embodiments include Angiopoietin-1 and -2,
and EPH family ligands, see claims. At page 9 a species comprising
VEGF and angiopoietin is specifically described, as is the definition that
'receptor binding domain” is “the minimal portion of the ligand that is
necessary to bind it's receptor.”
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007