Appeal No. 2006-0624 Page 8
Application No. 10/096,127
Ashkenazi II “couch any proclamations of the relationship between [inflammatory
bowel disease] and gamma interferon in the most cautious of terms.” Id.
Appellants argue further that there is no motivation to combine the above
references with Tomassi, as the references do not teach that there are any
storage or Fc binding problems. See id. at 9-11.
With respect to appellants’ argument that the knowledge of the ordinary
artisan would not provide motivation unless combined with improper hindsight,
appellants assert that while Queen suggests that anti-gamma interferon antibody
may be used to treat autoimmune diseases, the reference never actually
mentions the term “psoriasis.” See id. at 11-12. Moreover, appellants assert,
Ashkenazi teach that the role of gamma interferon in inflammatory bowel disease
has never been established, and that gamma interferon exacerbates multiple
sclerosis and psoriasis. See id. at 12. Given these teachings, appellants
contend, the ordinary artisan would not have been motivated to combine the
references to arrive at the claimed invention without the benefit of appellants
disclosure. See id. at 12-13.
Appellants argue further that the Ashkenazi references teach away from
the present invention by teaching that gamma interferon need not be present for
an autoimmune disease to cause pathology (Askenazi I, Col. 1, lines 32-3; Col.
3, lines 54-55, 64-67; Col. 5, lines 35-37), and thus there is no reason to remove
it through the use of anti-gamma interferon antibodies. See id. at 13-14.
Appellants also argue as to Ashkenazi I and Ashkenazi II, “that the tissue type,
the disease and the treatment taught in Ashkenazi I and II are not indicative of a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007