Appeal 2006-2945
Application 10/041,958
The combination of Krivan, Perera, and Williams:
10. Does not teach monoclonal human or humanized antibodies (id.).
Queen:
11. Teaches “methodology for the production of CDR-grafted antibodies
having CDRs derived from the variable regions of non-human antibodies
and framework regions derived from human antibodies . . .” (Answer 5).
12. Teaches that “CDR-grafted antibodies were recognized to be useful
reagents for diagnostic and therapeutic applications” (id.).
13. Teaches “that humanized antibodies are substantially non-immunogenic
in humans and retain substantially the same affinity as the donor
immunoglobulin” (id.).
Engelman:
14. Teaches “that methods for constructing human-human hybrids that
secrete human monoclonal antibodies . . . were well known in the art at the
time of Applicants[’] invention” (id.).
Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Examiner concludes that
“it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have generated a humanized antibody or a human monoclonal antibody as
taught by Queen . . . and Engelman [respectively] . . ., for use in the method
disclosed by Krivan . . .” (Answer 5-6). We find no error in the Examiner’s
reasoning and conclusion.
In further view of the foregoing factual findings, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013