Appeal No. 2006-2575
Application No. 10/025,567
6. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 AND 21
Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious in view of Tokoro, Kaspers, Pimentel, and
Krause, as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 16, and 19, and further in view of
Adalsteinsson9 and Betz.10 (Answer 11-13.)
We reverse this rejection.
Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 all ultimately depend from claim 13,
16, or 19. As discussed supra, claims 13, 16, and 19 recite compositions
comprising antibodies to either P antigen, CS antigen, or CA antigen. As
also discussed supra, the Examiner has not shown, and we do not see, where
Tokoro, Kaspers, Pimentel, and Krause suggest a composition containing
antibodies to those antigens. We see nothing in Adalsteinsson, Betz, or the
Examiner’s reasoning, which remedies the deficiencies of Tokoro, Kaspers,
Pimentel, and Krause. We therefore reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21.
7. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIM 5
Claim 5 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of Tokoro, Kaspers, Pimentel, Stolle, Sugita-Konishi, and
Yokoyama. (Answer 13.)
As we understand it, the basis of this rejection is that the non-E. coli
embodiments of claim 5 would have been obvious based on the cited
references. However, for the reasons discussed supra, we conclude that
Tokoro anticipates claim 5. We therefore agree with the Examiner that
9 Adalsteinsson et al., U.S. Patent 6,086,878, issued July 11, 2000.
10 Betz et al., U.S. Patent 4,166,867, issued September 4, 1979.
25
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013