Appeal No. 2006-2575
Application No. 10/025,567
Moreover, the Examiner has not shown that the cited references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to produce
protective antibodies against P. anaerobius, C. sticklandii, and
C. aminophilum that it would have been desirable to make compositions
containing antibodies to the culture supernatants of those organisms, rather
than the cells. Nor has the Examiner shown that one of ordinary skill would
have had a reasonable expectation that inoculating birds with the culture
supernatants of P. anaerobius, C. sticklandii, and C. aminophilum, rather
than whole cells, would have yielded antibodies capable of inhibiting the
organism in the digestive tracts of food animals.
Thus, in our view, the Examiner has not established that one of
ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce compositions
containing antibodies to P antigen from P. anaerobius, CS antigen from
C. sticklandii, or CA antigen from C. aminophilum, with a reasonable
expectation that inoculating birds with P, CS, or CA antigen would have
successfully produced antibody capable of inhibiting P. anaerobius,
C. sticklandii, or C. aminophilum. We therefore reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 13, 16 and 19.
To summarize, Tokoro describes a composition encompassed by
representative claim 5. We therefore affirm the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 3 and 5. However, because the cited references do not teach or
suggest preparing a dried avian egg composition containing antibodies to P,
CS, or CA antigens, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 13, 16,
and 19.
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013