Appeal No. 2005-0392
Application No. 09/171,885
34. A method of producing and administering a prodrug complex comprising:
(a) identifying a drug
(b) selecting a synthetic receptor that specifically binds the drug via
a saturable, noncovalent interaction between the drug and the
synthetic receptor that can be competitively inhibited by structural
analogs of the drug, said synthetic receptor being selected from the
group consisting of antibodies, antibody fragments, oligonucleotides
and oligosaccharides;
(c) specifically binding the identified drug to this selected synthetic
receptor to form a prodrug complex; and
(d) administering the prodrug complex to an organism.
36. A method of producing a multi-prodrug complex for administration to an
organism, said multi-prodrug complex comprising at least two prodrug
complexes, wherein at least one of the prodrug complexes is produced
and administered in accordance with the method of claim 30, 32 or 34.[1]
The reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Morgan, Jr., et al. 5,106,951 Apr. 21, 1992
(Morgan)
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 34, 35, 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Morgan.
1 We note that the appellant has attached an “Appendix II” to the brief consisting
of proposed amendments to claims 34, 36, 37 and 38. The amendments include, inter
alia, rewriting claim 36 in an independent form. We direct attention to 37 C.F.R. §
1.195(2004) which states that after appeal affidavits, declarations and exhibits “will not
be admitted without a showing of good and sufficient reasons as to why they were not
earlier presented.” (Attention is further directed to new rules, 37 C.F.R. § 41.33,
§ 41.37(c)(1)(ix) and § 41.41(a)(2)). The appellant has made no such showing.
Accordingly, the appellant is herein advised that the proposed amendment to the claims
set forth in Appendix II has not been entered into the file.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007