Appeal 2006-2945
Application 10/041,958
col. 8, ll. 16-19), whose cells only contain low levels of receptors for SLTs
(Krivan, col. 8, ll. 25-26) are not being treated – they are being used to
produce antibodies that are to be used for passive immunization (Krivan, col.
8, ll. 31-35), e.g., the treatment of other animals, including humans.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion.
A8. “Krivan teaches away from treating humans by stating that the method
is for the treatment of animals that have few or no receptors to SLTs.
Humans have receptors. That is why cattle and humans are different” (Br.
17).
For the foregoing reasons, we disagree with Appellants’ assertion.
Perera:
A9. “Perera does not teach antibodies for therapeutic use and suggests that
antibodies to subunits of Stx2 are not as effective as antibodies to Stx1” (Br.
14).
Appellants are correct in their assertion that Perera does not teach the
therapeutic use of their antibodies. Perera does, however, teach five
monoclonal antibodies that bind the α-subunit of SLT-II (Perera, page 2130,
col. 1, ll. 34-35) and are capable of neutralizing the cytotoxicity of SLT-II
(Perera abstract). As the Examiner explains, “[n]eutralizing antibodies, by
definition, neutralize the effect of the toxin, consequently motivation to
specifically incorporate antibodies with this property would be readily
apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art” (Answer 8). We find no error in
the Examiner’s assertion.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013