Ex Parte Tzipori et al - Page 15

                  Appeal  2006-2945                                                                                            
                  Application 10/041,958                                                                                       
                  strains 7 were reactive with monoclonal antibody 11E10 and 6 were reactive                                   
                  with monoclonal antibody 2E1 (Perera, page 2130, Table 2).  Of these 10                                      
                  strains, only 3 strains did not react in a colony ELISA with any of the                                      
                  neutralizing MAbs to SLT-II (Perera, page 2131, ll. 11-13).  According to                                    
                  Perera, “[t]hese three strains may produce SLTs more like the SLT-IIv of pig                                 
                  edema disease strains.  In support of this possibility is the observation that                               
                  none of the nine SLT-IIv-producing edema disease strains were detected by                                    
                  the MAbs to SLT-II in colony ELISA” (Perera, page 2131, col. 1, ll. 17-20).                                  
                  Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ intimation, 70% of the SLT-II strains                                     
                  tested reacted with Perera’s neutralizing MAbs.  According to Perera, “[a]ll                                 
                  the neutralizing MAbs generated in the present study recognized the A                                        
                  subunit of SLT-II” (Perera, page 2130, col. 1, ll. 34-35).  Therefore, we are                                
                  not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the                                
                  art “would not be led by Perera to use these antibodies in therapy, nor one                                  
                  would [sic] have a reasonable expectation of success using just an antibody                                  
                  to Stx2, much less to a single subunit of Stx2” (Br. 19).  To the contrary, we                               
                  find that Perera’s teaching that 70% of the SLT-II strains tested reacted with                               
                  Perera’s neutralizing MAbs provides more than a reasonable expectation of                                    
                  success in using a neutralizing MAb as a therapeutic agent in a dosage                                       
                  formulation for the treatment or prevention of hemolytic uremic syndrome in                                  
                  a human when taken in view of the combination of reference relied upon by                                    
                  the Examiner.  For obviousness under §103, all that is required is a                                         
                  reasonable expectation of success.  In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904, 7                                    
                  USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  In our opinion, when taken in the                                       
                  context of the prior art relied upon, Perera provides a reasonable expectation                               
                  that a formulation comprising antibodies to SLT II α-subunit would be                                        

                                                              15                                                               

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013