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