Appeal No. 2006-2575
Application No. 10/025,567
We affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 6. Claims 7, 12, 22, and
23 fall with claim 6.
9. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 24-29
Claims 24-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Tokoro, Kaspers, Pimentel, Stolle, Krause, Adalsteinsson, and
Betz. (Answer 20.)
We reverse this rejection.
Claims 24-29 all recite compositions comprising antibodies to either
P antigen, CS antigen, or CA antigen. As discussed supra with respect to
claims 13-21, the Examiner has not shown, and we do not see, where
Tokoro, Kaspers, Pimentel, Krause, Adalsteinsson and Betz, alone or in
combination, suggest a composition containing antibodies to those antigens.
We see nothing in Stolle, or the Examiner’s reasoning, that remedies the
deficiencies of Tokoro, Kaspers, Pimentel, Krause, Adalsteinsson and Betz.
We therefore reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 24-29.
SUMMARY
We reverse the written description and enablement rejections of
claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 12-29.
We reverse the new matter rejection of claims 5 and 12.
We affirm the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 12, 22 and
23.
We reverse the obvious rejections of claims 13-21 and 24-29.
29
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013