Appeal 2007-0746
Application 10/139,496
Giving claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation, it does not
require any particular level of purification for the glycoprotein, or the
separation of any particular protein or other compound from the
glycoprotein.
Appellants isolated and purified their claimed glycoprotein, IESCA,
“with anti-IESCA monoclonal antibody (MAb) KHRI-3 both by
immunoprecipitation and antibody affinity chromatography.” (Spec. 8.)
To the extent Zajic obtained the identical protein, regardless of how
purified, it would anticipate the glycoprotein of Appellants’ claims.
Zajic’s “teaching of gel purification . . . of the total population of
proteins present within inner-ear organ of Corti tissue, followed by Western
blotting . . . using sequential hybridization of primary antibody specific for a
protein on the gel (e.g., KHRI-3) followed by a detectable secondary
antibody specific for the primary antibody to detect the presence or absence
of a protein on the membrane,” (Reply Br. 4-5 (emphasis added)), prima
facie provides Appellants’ claimed glycoprotein, separated from a mixture
of other proteins.
With respect to the § 103(a) rejection of claim 10, Appellants do not
dispute any claim limitation other than that disputed with respect to the
§ 102(b) rejection, i.e., the “immunopurified glycoprotein.” (See Br. 11-12;
Reply Br. 6-7.)
Discussion of the §§ 102(b) and 103(a) Issues
During examination proceedings, “claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. [This]
proposition ‘serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims,
finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified,’ . . . and it is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013