Appeal No. 2004-1259
Application No. 09/832,355
not act together to cause the same effect, Ang-1 clearly promotes angiogenesis, at a
later stage in the process than VEGF.” Answer, page 24. In addition, the examiner
notes that “Ang-1 is specifically disclosed as a species of 2nd peptide, at paragraph
[0050] of the specification.” Id. We also agree with the examiner that the claims do
not require any particular amount of angiogenic or bone growth activity. Answer, page
25.
Thus, we agree that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation over Davis. We do not find that appellants have rebutted the examiner's
prima facie case of anticipation with sufficient argument or evidence. Appellants have
not provided any evidence showing that Ang-1 does not possess angiogenesis
promoting activity.
The rejection of the claims for anticipation over Davis is affirmed.
35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Claims 1-5, 9, 17, 18, 32-34, 41 and 43-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a), as obvious over Yoon in view of either or both of Gill and Rockwell.
Yoon teaches an EGF:angiogenin fusion protein. Answer, page 14. According
to the examiner, Yoon teaches that because EGF receptors are expressed on most
cancer cell lines, EGF can be used to target and internalize the angiogenin portion of
the fusion protein, resulting in targeted cytotoxicity. Id. In this regard, Yoon states that
“[b]inding of EGF to the extracellular domain of the EGFR activates the receptor
24
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007