Appeal 2006-2945
Application 10/041,958
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Krivan, Perera, Williams,
Queen and Engelman. Claims 27 and 29 fall together with claim 28.
Claim 30:
Claim 30 depends from and further limits the antibody of claim 26 to
an antibody that binds the alpha subunit of the Shiga like toxin II. Perera
teaches “five monoclonal antibodies which bind to the α-subunit of SLT-II
and were able to neutralize the toxin” (FF 7).
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 modified non-human
antibodies to humanized, recombinant or chimeric forms. Therefore, we are
not persuaded by Appellants’ assertions.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Krivan, Perera, Williams,
Queen and Engelman. Claim 33 falls together with claim 30.
Claim 31:
Claim 31 depends from and further limits the antibodies of claim 26 to
require that the antibodies are effective to prevent neurological signs of
hemolytic uremic syndrome or lesions, wherein the neurological signs or
lesions are selected from the group consisting of bloody diarrhea, acute
renal failure, cerebral hemorrhaging, bacterial shedding into feces, bacterial
lesions, paddling, head-pressing, ataxia, convulsions and wasting.
24
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013