Appeal 2007-1621
Application 10/721,839
The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall
together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We will focus on claim 1, the
broadest claim on appeal, which reads as follows:
1. A method for reducing the infectivity of an enveloped
virus comprising contacting said virus with a first anti-viral
peptide, said peptide comprising a chimeric theta defensin
peptide selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO:31
and SEQ ID NO:32
2. PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Lehrer WO 02/085401 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
3. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 1, 9, 18-24, 27, 28, 34-38, and 40 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Lehrer (Answer 3).
The Examiner cites Lehrer as teaching “the making and use of theta
defensins comprising an amino acid sequence formed from any combination
of two nonapeptides selected from those disclosed as SEQ ID NOs: 19-64 in
the reference. See, e.g., claim 6” (id. at 4). The Examiner states that Lehrer
“teaches that these defensins may be administered to a subject with a viral
infection, [or] facing exposure to viral infection, including infection by
HIV” (id.).
The Examiner concedes that Lehrer “does not verbatim teach the use
of the peptides of SEQ ID NOs: 31 and 32 of the present application” (id.).
Despite this, the Examiner urges that Lehrer suggests administering those
peptides to combat viral infection because Lehrer “teaches the combination
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013