Appeal No. 2006-2745 Page 3
Application No. 09/966,119
administration.” There is, however, no requirement in claim 28 that this
composition be “administered” e.g., to a patient, or that it be administered
“orally,” as opposed to e.g., intravenously.
According to appellants’ specification (page 9), “[a] preferred
immunoglobulin composition, Cohn Fraction II + III, contains at least about 30%
to about 85% IgG polyclonal antibodies, about 5% to about 30% IgA and about
1% to about 25% IgM and trace amounts of other components. . . .” As the
examiner points out (Answer, page 6), Hardie teaches an oral composition that
contains
about 1-80% IG, more preferably about 5-50% of which not less
than 70% is gamma globulin (IgG). . . . The product may contain
other globulins such as IgA, IgM, IgD, and IgE. For example, Cohn
Fraction II and III contains the following proportions of the above:
about 8 parts IgG to 1 part each of IgA and IgM and traces of IgD
and IgE.
In our opinion, but for the requirement in appellants’ claim that the composition
be irradiated, the oral Cohn Fraction II + III composition taught by Hardie is the
same as the Cohn Fraction II + III set forth in appellants’ claimed invention.
While appellants acknowledge that Hardie teaches an “orally
administerable composition” (Brief, page 6, emphasis removed), they argue that
the Cohn Fraction II + III composition as taught by Hardie is simply a “starting
material for the orally administerable composition” that “is then suspended in a
certain salt solution, at a certain temperature and pH before it is sterile filtered.”
We do not find this argument convincing. The fact that Hardie teaches that the
orally administerable Cohn Fraction II + III composition is suspended in salt,
maintained at a particular temperature and pH, and sterile filtered does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007