Appeal 2006-3288
Application 10/316,761
In summary, Iovanna explicitly describes antibodies raised against
the NH2-terminal portion of Iovanna’s SEQ ID NO: 7, and this portion is
identical to the NH2-terminal portion of Appellants’ SEQ ID NO: 1.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has established a sound basis for
believing that antibodies raised against the NH2-terminal portion of
Iovanna’s SEQ ID NO: 7 would specifically bind a polypeptide of SEQ ID
NO: 1, and Appellants have not explained why this would not be the case.
We find that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation, which Appellants have not adequately rebutted by argument or
evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the anticipation rejection claim 11.
Claims 32, 34, 42, and 43 fall with claim 11.
OBVIOUSNESS
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over
Iovanna in view of Queen.
Claim 31 depends from claim 11. The Examiner acknowledges that
Iovanna does not describe the humanized PAP antibodies of claim 31, and
relies on Queen as evidence that “it would have been prima facie obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain humanized antibodies as taught
by Queen [ ], to the PAP protein [ ] as taught by Iovanna” (Answer 5).
Appellants do not dispute that it would have been obvious for one
skilled in the art to make a humanized version of Iovanna’s antibodies.
Rather, Appellants argue that the obviousness rejection “must fail for the
same reason that the rejection of claims 11, 32, 34, 42, and 43 . . . must fail”
(Brief 6).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013