Appeal 2007-2400
Application 10/418,182
5. OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON ROBERTS
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Roberts.1 The Examiner finds that Roberts discloses “an antibody model
with mutation at residue 34 (i.e., predetermined amino acid, as claimed) on
the first [CDR] of the light chain and residues 89 and 91 on the third [CDR]
of the light chain (i.e., predetermined residues in one or more positions in
three of the six CDRs, as claimed)” (Answer 7-8). The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to determine the total
number of subset[s] that can be obtained from the possible
combinations of mutations in the CDR regions of a library. The
motivation to make such mutations is provided by Crea above
in reciting the advantages derived in said mutations e.g.,
providing a means for systematic insertion of an amino acid
into a region of a protein, this method provides a way to enrich
a region of a protein with a particular amino acid. . . . Roberts
provide[s] similar motivation in the multisite mutations or
design of antibodies.
(Id. at 8-9.)
Appellant argues that “Roberts et al. focus solely on alteration of
certain residues involved in design of a metal-coordination site in an
antibody binding pocket, and there is no teaching or suggestion by Roberts
et al. to alter any amino acids other than certain specific residues involved in
sites for metal coordination” (Br. 8).
1 The Examiner’s Answer does not actually state which claims are rejected
over Roberts. However, the Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 16, 2004)
included a rejection of claims 1-9 based on Roberts and the Examiner did
not indicate in the Answer that that rejection was withdrawn or modified, so
we presume the rejection based on Roberts applies to claims 1-9.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013