Appeal 2006-3288
Application 10/316,761
“it is a mere possibility that Iovanna’s hypothetical antibody specifically
binds Appellants’ SEQ ID NO: 1” (id. at 5-6).
Nevertheless, while it is true that antibodies raised against Iovanna’s
whole protein might not bind Appellants’ protein, we note that Iovanna
explicitly teaches that “[p]articularly useful monoclonal antibodies . . . are
those which recognize specifically the NH2-terminal portion of the human
PAP” (Iovanna col. 9, ll. 65-68). As discussed above, the NH2-termini of
SEQ ID NO: 7 and SEQ ID NO: 1 are identical for a stretch of 28 amino
acids. Appellants have not explained why antibodies raised against this
portion of SEQ ID NO: 7 would not be expected to specifically bind SEQ
ID NO: 1.
In any case, we note that the present claims do not require antibodies
specific for portions of PAP-2 that differ from PAP-1. Nor do we find any
basis in the Specification for interpreting “specifically binds” as requiring an
antibody that binds Appellants’ SEQ ID NO: 1, but not Iovanna’s SEQ ID
NO: 7. As discussed above, the Specification merely states that the term
“specifically binds” “mean[s] that the interaction is dependent upon the
presence of a particular structure (i.e., the antigenic determinant or epitope)
on the protein” (Specification 13: 14-18).
Finally, it is irrelevant that a person of ordinary skill in the art might
raise other antibodies within the broad disclosure of Iovanna that would not
bind SEQ ID NO: 1. That is, it is irrelevant that antibodies raised against
other portions of Iovanna’s SEQ ID NO: 7 might not specifically bind a
polypeptide of Appellants’ SEQ ID NO: 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013