Ex Parte Tzipori et al - Page 9

                  Appeal  2006-2945                                                                                            
                  Application 10/041,958                                                                                       
                  Appellants assert that:                                                                                      
                  Krivan:                                                                                                      
                  A1.  “Krivan does not place one of skill in the art with antibodies to Stx2                                  
                  [(Shiga like toxin II)] which would be effective to treat or prevent human                                   
                  uremic syndrome” (Br.2 14, emphasis removed).                                                                
                          We disagree, and direct Appellants’ attention to, for example, claim 1                               
                  of Krivan, which reads on purified IgG monospecific polyclonal antibodies                                    
                  to each of SLT I, SLT II, and SLTIIv individually and as a mixture.  Krivan                                  
                  teaches that an “object[ive] of the invention is to provide pharmaceutical                                   
                  compositions for the prevention, amelioration, or treatment of disease in a                                  
                  human or animal caused by an SLT together with methods of using such                                         
                  compositions” (Krivan, col. 6, ll. 3-6).  As the Examiner points out, Krivan’s                               
                  pharmaceutical compositions comprise “purified high titer, monospecific                                      
                  polyclonal antibodies to Shiga-like toxin . . .” (Findings of Fact (FF) 1;                                   
                  Answer 3).   In addition, we direct attention to Krivan’s claim 17 which is                                  
                  directed to a method for passive immunization of a human or animal against                                   
                  SLT toxemia comprising administering a prophylactically effective amount                                     
                  of the antibody of claim 1 and claim 18 which is directed to a method for the                                
                  treatment of SLT toxemia in a human or animal comprising administering a                                     
                  therapeutically effective amount of the antibody of claim 1.  Further, Krivan                                
                  teaches that SLT toxemia is associated with a spectrum of diseases including                                 
                  HUS (Krivan, col. 1, ll. 46-49).  Therefore, we find that Krivan teaches that                                
                  HUS can be treated or prevented, in a human, by passive immunization of a                                    


                                                                                                                              
                  2 All reference to Appellants’ Brief (Br.) are to the Substitute Appeal Brief                                
                  received March 29, 2006.                                                                                     
                                                              9                                                                

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013