Appeal 2006-2945
Application 10/041,958
A15. Williams’ “results would not be predictive of efficacy in humans” (Br.
18).
Again, Appellants fail to set forth a factual foundation to support this
conjecture.
Queen:
A16. Queen’s “techniques do not incorporate the use of an intact ‘immune
system’ to produce . . . humanized monoclonal antibodies” (Br. 19).
While this may be true, Appellants’ point is less than clear. As one of
ordinary skill in this art would appreciate, an intact immune system is not
necessary to produce recombinant antibodies according to Queen’s method.
While Appellants’ claim 26 requires “human or humanized antibodies,” no
claim presented for our review requires “an intact immune system to
produce humanized monoclonal antibodies.” Queen teaches the production
of humanized antibodies. Queen taken together with Krivan, alone or in
combination with Perera and Williams, teaches a humanized SLT-II
antibody. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Summary:
For the foregoing reasons, we find the totality of Appellants’
arguments unpersuasive. Instead, we find that the preponderance of the
evidence favors the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have generated a dosage
formulation comprising “a humanized antibody or a human monoclonal
antibody as taught by Queen . . . and Engelman . . ., for use in the method
disclosed by Krivan” (Answer 5-6). Further, we find that the preponderance
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013