Appeal No. 2004-1505 Page 4
Application No. 09/016,743
involves fragments of antibodies. With this understanding, we do not find the claims
indefinite, nor do we find that the claims violate the written description requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, are
reversed.1
2. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants state that “dependent claims 3-10 and 25 stand or fall with the
independent claim from which they depend.” Appeal Brief, page 6. Accordingly, in
considering the issues raised under the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which is
based upon Hölzer and Huston, we shall limit our consideration to claim 1 on appeal.
See the then existing provisions of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
The chimeric molecule of claim 1 has two parts. The first part is a complete
antibody having heavy and light chains each with an N-terminus and being capable of
specifically binding to a tumor cell associated antigen. The second part is a chemokine
coupled to the N-terminus of the heavy or light chain of the antibody. The complete
antibody and chemokine are coupled in such a manner that the antibody remains
capable of binding to the tumor cell associated antigen and the chemokine retains it
activity.
There is no real dispute as to what Hölzer and Huston describe. Rather,
appellants and the examiner disagree on what conclusion should be reached from a
consideration of the two disclosures.
1 In the future, such confusion would be avoided if appellants would comply with
and/or the examiner would enforce the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007