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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013