Appeal 2006-2945
Application 10/041,958
Absent evidence to the contrary, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
asserted long-felt need for the claimed technology.
Summary:
For the foregoing reasons, we find the totality of Appellants’
arguments, Declaratory evidence, and asserted long-felt need unpersuasive.
Instead, for the foregoing reasons, we find that the preponderance of the
evidence on this record weighs in favor of the Examiner’s conclusion that
claim 26 is prima facie obvious over the combination of Krivan, Perera,
Williams, Queen and Engelman. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claim 26 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Krivan, Perera, Williams, Queen and Engelman.
Claim 28:
Claim 28 depends from and further limits the antibody of claim 26 to
those that are produced by recombinant DNA methodology. Queen teaches
methodology to produce recombinant antibodies (FF 11-13).
We recognize Appellants’ assertion that “[t]he prior art does not teach
administration of humanized (claim 27), recombinant (claim 28) or chimeric
humanized antibodies (claim 29)” (Br. 29). The prior art relied upon by the
Examiner teaches administration of antibodies, and provides reasons why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would seek to modify non-human
antibodies to humanized, recombinant or chimeric forms. Therefore, we are
not persuaded by Appellants’ assertions.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C
23
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013