Ex Parte van de Winkel - Page 5




              Appeal No. 2005-1504                                                                                         
              Application No. 09/820,099                                                                                   
                            One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to and had a                        
                     reasonable expectation of success to have used the complex comprising                                 
                     monomeric IgA linked to a second antibody (a bispecific agent or multispecific)                       
                     for the elimination of a target cell or antigen because Shen et al[.] teach Fc"Rs                     
                     are capable of interacting with IgA in the form of monomers and binding induces                       
                     phagocytosis . . . and Shen et al[.] teach that the binding agent binds with the                      
                     same affinity as monomeric IgA and that the binding agent does not inhibit the                        
                     binding of IgA [Answer, p. 4].                                                                        
                     It is well established that the examiner has the initial burden under 35 U.S.C.                       
              § 103 to establish a prima facie case.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d                        
              1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785,                           
              787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  To that end, it is the examiner’s responsibility to show that                      
              some objective teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, or knowledge generally                       
              available in the art, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the                         
              references to arrive at the claimed invention.  Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes                           
              Plastics, Inc., 745 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996).                                  
                     Here, we find that the examiner has not provided any reason based on the                              
              applied prior art as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of                          
              ordinary skill in the art.  That is, if we look only at the subject matter recited in claim 1,               
              we find that it is directed to a method of administering a complex comprising (1)                            
              monomeric IgA or a portion thereof which binds to Fc"RI; and (2) a portion which                             
              specifically binds to a target cell or antigen.  We agree with the examiner that Shen                        
              teaches a bispecific complex having the second portion; i.e., a complex having a portion                     
              which specifically binds to a target cell or antigen (page 1, lines 29-32); however, we do                   
              not find that Shen teaches or suggests that the complex comprise monomeric IgA, or a                         
                                                            5                                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007