Appeal 2006-2945
Application 10/041,958
this record because Krivan expressly teaches the treatment of humans.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this assertion.
A4. “There is no disclosure or suggestion [in Krivan] . . . to obtain a human
monoclonal antibody that will bind to, and specifically neutralize, Stx2 from
the E. coli in humans” (id.).
For the reasons set forth above, we disagree with this assertion.
A5. “Krivan does not . . . recognize that the bacteria that infect cattle are
unable to infect humans and cause HUS. Therefore, Krivan does not
disclose nor enable treatment of humans to prevent HUS” (id.).
For the reasons set forth above, we disagree with this assertion.
A6. Krivan states that “his antibodies and invention are not, and cannot be,
useful in humans.” (id.).
For the reasons set forth above, this assertion is directly refuted by
Krivan’s disclosure. Accordingly, we do not find it persuasive.
A7. The Krivan “patent makes clear, the animals to be treated to make
antibodies do not possess receptors for the toxin (thereby excluding
humans), and the resulting antibodies therefore would not be administerable
to humans (it is well known one cannot administer bovine antibodies by
injection to humans)” (id., emphasis removed).
This assertion lays the foundation for all of Appellants’ assertions and
is based on a misinterpretation of Krivan’s disclosure. Animals, e.g. cattle
(Krivan, col. 8, l. 31) as compared to other mammals or humans (Krivan,
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013