Appeal 2006-3288 Application 10/316,761 Thus, Appellants do not argue the patentability claim 31 separately from the patentability of claim 11. Inasmuch as we have already determined that the Examiner has established a prima facie case that Iovanna anticipates claim 11, and Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s conclusion with respect to the combined teachings of Iovanna and Queen, we will affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 31 as well. SUMMARY Because the Examiner has established a prima facie case that Iovanna describes antibodies which specifically bind a polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, which Appellants have not adequately rebutted by argument or evidence, we affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 11, 32, 34, 42, and 43. Because Iovanna and Queen together teach or suggest all of the limitations recited in claim 31, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 31 as well. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED dm FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP SUITE 500 3000 K STREET NW WASHINGTON DC 20007 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013