Ex Parte Sokoll

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 4, 2010

10076674 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 4, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte KENNETH K. SOKOLL
__________

Appeal 2009-0062831
Application 10/076,674
Technology Center 1600
__________

Decided: January 4, 2010
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and
MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims to an
immunostimulatory complex between a peptide and an oligonucleotide. The
Examiner rejected the claims as obvious.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 United Biomedical, Inc. is the real party in interest.
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 4-9, 12, 13, 18, and 19 stand rejected and appealed (Ans. 2).
Claim 1, the only independent claim, is representative and reads as follows:
1. A stabilized immunostimulatory microparticulate
complex comprising a cationic peptide immunogen wherein the
peptide immunogen comprises a target B cell antigen or a CTL
epitope and a T helper cell epitope and an anionic CpG
oligonucleotide wherein the cationic peptide immunogen has a
net positive charge at a pH in the range of 5.0 to 8.0 calculated
by assigning a +1 charge for each lysine (K), arginine (R) or
histidine (H), a -1 charge for each aspartic acid (D) or glutamic
acid (E) and a charge of 0 for all other amino acids in the
peptide immunogen and wherein the anionic CpG
oligonucleotide has a net negative charge at a pH in the range of
5.0-8.0 and is a single-stranded DNA comprising 8 to 64
nucleotide bases with a repeat of a cytosine-guanidine motif
and the number of repeats of the CpG motif is in the range of 1
to 10.

The Examiner cites the following documents as evidence of
unpatentability:
Ladd et al. WO 94/25060 Nov. 10, 1994
Krieg et al. WO 01/22972 A2 Apr. 5, 2001

“Result no. 1 of the rng and result no. 1 of the rag search summary
pages, cited by the Office, 02/17/2005.” (Ans. 3.)

The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
(1) Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, 18, and 19, as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Krieg and Ladd, “as evidenced by result no. 1 of the
rng and result no. 1 of the rag search summary pages” (Ans. 4);
(2) Claims 1, 4, and 6, as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Krieg and Ladd (Ans. 8-9).
2
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

OBVIOUSNESS
ISSUE
The Examiner initially finds that SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant
application provides the nucleotide sequence of an oligonucleotide that
meets the requirements of the oligonucleotide recited in claim 1 (Ans. 5-6).
The Examiner also finds that SEQ ID NO: 9 of the instant application
provides the amino acid sequence of a cationic peptide immunogen that
meets the requirements of the peptide recited in claim 1 (id. at 6).
The Examiner cites Krieg as disclosing “a composition comprising an
immunostimulatory nucleic acid and an anti-cancer therapy” (id.). The
Examiner finds that one of the immunostimulatory nucleic acids taught by
Krieg “is an anionic CpG oligonucleotide . . . [that] has the sequence set
forth in SEQ ID NO: 429” which is “100% identical to the SEQ ID NO: 1
set forth in the claims” as evidenced by sequence search results (id.).
The Examiner further finds that Krieg discloses its compositions as
including additional immunotherapeutic agents, but concedes that it is not
apparent if Krieg’s additional immunotherapeutic agents are “cationic
peptide immunogens comprising a CLT epitope and a T helper cell epitope”
as required by claim 1 (id. at 7). The Examiner cites Ladd as teaching a
peptide that has the features required by claim 1 (id.).
The Examiner finds that Ladd’s peptide immunogen is useful for
treating, among other things, androgen-dependent carcinoma, prostatic
carcinoma, and testicular carcinoma in males, and estrogen-dependent breast
cancer in females (id.). The Examiner further finds that Ladd “refers to this
cationic peptide immunogen as SEQ ID NO: 35 . . . [which] is 100%
3
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

identical to SEQ ID NO: 9 set forth in the claim” as evidenced by sequence
search results (id.).
Based on the references’ teachings, the Examiner finds that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to combine the
therapeutic agents of Krieg and Ladd to treat “androgen-dependent
carcinoma, prostatic carcinoma and testicular carcinoma in males; . . . and
[to] prevent[] or treat[] estrogen-dependent breast cancer in females” (id. at
7-8).
Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to make a prima facie
case of obviousness (App. Br. 5-6).2 Specifically, Appellant urges that
Krieg does not disclose or suggest that its immunostimulatory
oligonucleotides have, or should have, negative charges (id. at 8). Rather,
Appellant urges, the Examiner’s finding that Krieg’s oligonucleotides
inherently have a negative charge is not based on the prior art, but instead
improperly based on Appellant’s own Specification (Reply Br. 6-7).
Moreover, Appellant argues, although Krieg discloses combining its
oligonucleotides with anti-cancer therapeutic agents, Krieg does not disclose
that those agents are peptide immunogens, nor does Krieg discuss
“complexing the immunostimulatory ODN [(oligodeoxynucleotide)] with
the anti-cancer agent” (App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 5-6). Appellant also
urges that, in view of Jones’3 disclosure of the necessity of screening several
hundred oligonucleotides for immunostimulatory properties, an ordinary

2 Appeal Brief entered March 19, 2008.
3 Trevor R. Jones et al., Synthetic oligodeoxynucleotides containing CpG
motifs enhance immunogenicity of a peptide malaria vaccine in Aotus
monkeys, 17 VACCINE 3065-3071 (1999).
4
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

artisan would not have expected to be able to “select the appropriate CpG
oligonuclotide [sic] to be an effective adjuvant for particular peptide
immunogens. In contrast, Applicant has provided a way to select effective
CpG ODNs that [are] effective when combine[d] with a cationic peptide
immunogen[]” (Reply Br. 4).
Appellant further argues that, while Ladd teaches using LHRH
(luteinizing hormone releasing hormone) peptides conjugated to a T helper
cell epitope for treating prostate cancer, Ladd does not teach or suggest
“complexing the LHRH-T helper cell epitope combination with anionic CpG
oligonucleotides” (App. Br. 10). Appellant also urges that the Examiner’s
finding that Ladd’s peptides inherently have a positive charge is not based
on the prior art, but instead improperly based on Appellant’s own
Specification (Reply Br. 8).
Thus, Appellant argues, “[o]nly when one recognizes that specific
CpG ODNs are negatively charged due to the presence of a phosphodiester,
such as a phosphorothiorate moiety, would one be motivated to identify,
select, or form cationic peptide immunogens” (id.). Therefore, Appellant
concludes:
The formation of a stable immunogen complex using the
selected or modified CpG oligonucleotide with a selected or
modified peptide with a positive charge is not found in the cited
prior references Krieg et al or Ladd et al. How to select or
obtain an anionic CpG oligonucleotide and a cationic peptide to
form a stable immunogen complex is found in Applicant’s
disclosure.

(App. Br. 13.)
Appellant also contends that “it is surprising that by forming
microparticles of the stabilized immunogen complex, a higher titer of
5
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

antibodies is obtained. See results shown in Figs 7 and 9. Moreover, the
virus neutralization activity of the antibodies elicited is improved” (id.).
Appellant does not argue the claims subject to this ground of rejection
separately. We select claim 1 as representative of the rejected subject
matter. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
In view of the positions advanced by Appellant and the Examiner, the
issues with respect to this rejection are (a) whether Appellant has shown that
the Examiner erred in concluding that an ordinary artisan would have
considered the complex recited in claim 1 prima facie obvious in view of the
teachings of Krieg and Ladd, and (b) if the Examiner did not err with respect
to prima facie obviousness, whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Appellant did not present sufficient evidence of
unexpected results to overcome the prima facie case.
FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. Claim 1 recites a stabilized immunostimulatory microparticulate
complex that has two components: (1) a cationic peptide immunogen, and
(2) an anionic CpG oligonucleotide.
2. The cationic peptide immunogen component of claim 1’s complex
must have either a target B cell antigen, or a CTL epitope and a T helper cell
epitope, and must also have a net positive charge at a pH in the range of 5.0
to 8.0. The positive charge is calculated by assigning a +1 charge for each
lysine (K), arginine (R) or histidine (H), a -1 charge for each aspartic acid
(D) or glutamic acid (E) and a charge of 0 for all other amino acids.
3. Claim 19 depends ultimately from claim 1, and specifies that “the
cationic immunogen is selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 7,
8 and 9 and a mixture thereof.”
6
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

4. The anionic CpG oligonucleotide component of claim 1’s complex
must have a net negative charge at a pH in the range of 5.0-8.0, and be a
single-stranded DNA comprising 8 to 64 nucleotide bases with a repeat of a
cytosine-guanidine motif, with the number of repeats of the CpG motif being
in the range of 1 to 10.
5. Claim 13 ultimately depends from claim 1, and specifies that the
“CpG oligonucleotide is . . . SEQ ID NO: 1.”
6. The Specification discloses that “‘anionic molecules’ as described
herein refers to molecules, which are negatively charged at a pH in the range
of 5.0-8.0. The net negative charge on the oligomer or polymer is calculated
by assigning a -1 charge for each phosphodiester or phosphorothioate group
in the oligomer” (Spec. [0037]).
Thus, “[m]ultiply charged anionic molecules, such as the short CpG
oligomers possess a net negative charge when the pH is in the range 5.5-7.4
in aqueous solutions” (id. at [0080].)
7. The Specification discloses:
The net negative charge on the polynucleotide or
oligonucleotide is calculated by assigning a -1 charge for each
phosphodiester or phosphorothioate group in the oligomer. A
suitable anionic oligonucleotide is a single- stranded DNA
molecule with 8 to 64 nucleotide bases, with a repeated CpG
motif and the number of repeats of the CpG motif is in the
range of 1 to 10. . . .
Most preferably, the CpG oligonucleotide is selected
from a group consisting of . . . SEQ ID NO: 1, [which is] a 32
base length oligomer, and . . . SEQ ID NO: 2, [which is] a 24
base length oligomer plus an phosphorothioate bridging group .
. . .
(Id. at [0065]-[0067].)
7
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

8. The Specification discloses that the claimed complex is prepared
simply by mixing the negatively charged oligonucleotide and the positively
charged peptide immunogen in an aqueous solution:
The immunostimulatory complex of the present invention
is prepared by a controlled self-assembling process wherein the
anionic CpG oligonucleotide in aqueous solution is added to an
aqueous solution of the cationic peptide immunogen. Suitable
aqueous solutions for the preparation of an immunostimulatory
complex is selected from the group consisting of distilled
deionized water (DDW), normal saline (NS) or phosphate
buffered saline (PBS).

(Id. at [0079].)

9. Krieg discloses “immunostimulatory nucleic acid compositions [that] .
. . contain poly T sequences and/or have greater than 25 % T nucleotide
residues. . . . These immunostimulatory nucleic acids function in a similar
manner to nucleic acids containing CpG motifs. The invention also
encompasses preferred CpG nucleic acids” (Krieg, abstract).
10. Claim 101 of Krieg recites “[a] composition comprising an
immunostimulatory nucleic acid selected from the group consisting of . . .
SEQ ID NO: 426-947 . . ., and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier” (id. at
166).
11. It is undisputed that Krieg’s SEQ ID NO: 429, which encodes one of
Krieg’s immunostimulatory nucleic acids, is identical to Appellant’s SEQ ID
NO: 1.
12. Krieg discloses that “the immunostimulatory nucleic acids are useful
as vaccine adjuvants” (Krieg 84).
13. Krieg discloses that the “immunostimulatory nucleic acids may also
be administered in conjunction with an anti-cancer therapy” (id. at 100).
8
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

14. Krieg characterizes the anti-cancer utility of its immunostimulatory
nucleic acids as follows:
[T]he Py-rich and TG nucleic acids are useful for treating
cancer. The Py-rich and TG nucleic acids are also useful
according to other aspects of the inven[t]ion in preventing
cancer (e.g., reducing a risk of developing cancer) in a su[b]ject
at risk of developing a cancer. The cancer may be selected
from the group consisting of . . . breast cancer, . . . prostate
cancer, . . . and testicular cancer.
Py-rich and TG nucleic acids may also be used for
increasing the responsiveness of a cancer cell to a cancer
therapy (e.g., an anti-cancer therapy), optionally when the Py-
rich or TG immunostimulatory nucleic acid is administered in
conjunction with an anti-cancer therapy. The anti-cancer
therapy may be a chemotherapy, a vaccine (e.g., an in vitro
primed dendritic cell vaccine or a cancer antigen vaccine) or an
antibody based therapy.

(Id. at 14.)

15. Thus, in one embodiment, Krieg discloses “a composition, comprising
an immunostimulatory nucleic acid and an anti-cancer therapy, formulated
in a pharmaceutically-acceptable carrier and in an effective amount to treat a
cancer or to reduce the risk of developing a cancer” (id. at 18).
16. Ladd discloses “immunogenic luteinizing hormone releasing hormone
(LHRH) peptides that lead to functional suppression of LHRH levels in
males or females” (Ladd 1).
17. Ladd discloses that its immunogenic synthetic peptides have “about
30 to about 90 amino acids [and] contain[s] an immunostimulatory invasin
domain, a helper T cell (Th) epitope and a peptide hapten” (id. at 6).
9
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

The hapten moiety of Ladd’s peptides can include “any . . . B cell epitope
(such as from pathogenic organisms) or a CTL (cytotoxic T cell)-generating
epitope” (id. at 7).
18. Ladd discloses:
[P]eptides of this invention are Peptide A (SEQ ID NO:10;
Table 1), Peptides F-L (SEQ ID NOS:11-17; Table 4) and
Peptides 18-41 (SEQ ID NOS:18-41; Table 5). Preferred
peptides include Peptide A, Peptide F and Peptide H. More
preferred peptides include peptides 18, 19, 32-35, H and K, and
most preferably 19, 32, H and K.

(Id. at 27.)
19. SEQ ID NO: 33 of Ladd (see id. at 115) is identical to SEQ ID NO: 9
of the instant application, and recited in claim 19 of the instant application.4
20. Ladd discloses:
Another aspect of this invention provides a vaccine
composition comprising an immunologically-effective amount
of one or more of the peptides of this invention and a
pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Such vaccine
compositions are used in the methods of . . . treating prostatic
hyperplasia, androgen-dependent carcinoma, prostatic
carcinoma, testicular carcinoma, . . . or prevention or treatment
of estrogen-dependent breast tumors.
Accordingly, the subject peptides can be formulated as a
vaccine composition using adjuvants, pharmaceutically-
acceptable carriers or other ingredients routinely provided in
vaccine compositions. Such formulations are readily
determined by one of ordinary skill in the art . . . .

4 While the Examiner finds that Appellant’s SEQ ID NO: 9 is 100%
identical to Ladd’s SEQ ID NO: 35 (Ans. 7), and Appellant does not dispute
that finding, comparison of Ladd’s SEQ ID NO: 33 to Appellant’s SEQ ID
NO: 9 shows them to be identical (see Ladd 115; see also Sequence Listing
4 (entered April 23, 2002)).
10
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

(Id. at 29.)
21. Ladd discloses that “[v]accines which contain cocktails of two or
more of the subject peptides enhance immunoefficacy in a broader
population and thus provide a better immune response against LHRH” (id. at
30).
22. Jones discloses experiments in which CpG-containing
oligonucleotides were co-administered with peptide antigens to Aotus
monkeys (Jones 3065 (abstract)). Jones found that its data “indicate that
oligodeoxynucleotides containing CpG motifs improve immunogenicity of
peptide immunogens in non-human primates, and may be
immunopotentiators useful in humans” (id.).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme
Court rejected a rigid approach to the question of obviousness, and
ultimately reaffirmed that “when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with
each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields
no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination
is obvious.” Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273
(1976)).
The Court reasoned that “if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id.
The Court advised, however, that
it can be important to identify a reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention
11
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

does . . . because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely
upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in
some sense, is already known.

Id. at 418-419 (emphasis added).
The Court also cautioned that, “[i]n determining whether the subject
matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the
avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective
reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid
under § 103.” Id. at 419.
Nonetheless, a prima facie case of obvious cannot be based on a fact
not disclosed in the prior art. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (“‘That which may be inherent is not necessarily known.
Obviousness cannot be predicated on what is unknown.’ Such a
retrospective view of inherency is not a substitute for some teaching or
suggestion supporting an obviousness rejection.”) (quoting In re Spormann,
363 F.2d 444, 448 (CCPA 1966)).
On the other hand, the inherent properties of prior art elements need
not be disclosed in the prior art. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-
78 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (obviousness rejection affirmed where using claimed
elements in the manner suggested by the prior art necessarily resulted in
claim-recited effect); see also MEHL/Biophile Int'l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192
F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency is not necessarily coterminous
with knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. Artisans of ordinary
skill may not recognize the inherent characteristics or functioning of the
prior art.”).

12
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
concluding that an ordinary artisan would have considered the complex
recited in claim 1 prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of Krieg and
Ladd. Claim 1 recites a stabilized immunostimulatory microparticulate
complex that has two components: (1) a cationic peptide immunogen, and
(2) an anionic CpG oligonucleotide.
Ladd discloses that a peptide encompassed by claim 1 is desirable in
an anti-cancer cancer vaccine composition used for treating prostatic
carcinoma, testicular carcinoma, and estrogen-dependent breast tumors (FF
20). Ladd discloses that adjuvants are suitable in those compositions (id.).
Ladd does not appear to include an oligonucleotide having the
properties recited in claim 1 in its compositions.
However, Krieg discloses that an oligonucleotide having those
properties is useful as an adjuvant in vaccine compositions (FF 12), is useful
in treating breast, prostate, and testicular cancers, and is useful in
combination with other cancer therapies, including anti-cancer vaccines (FF
14). In view of these disclosures, we agree with the Examiner that an
ordinary artisan would have been prompted to combine Krieg’s
oligonucleotide with Ladd’s peptide into a single vaccine composition useful
for treating breast, prostate, and testicular cancers.
Thus, rather than being based on a hindsight reconstruction of
Appellant’s disclosure, or on any unknown inherent properties of the two
agents, the impetus for combining the agents would have been based solely
on the prior art.
13
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

It may be true, as Appellant argues, that neither of the references
states that either of the two agents should be complexed with other agents.
However, the two claimed agents self-assemble into a complexed form when
simply combined in aqueous solutions suitable for administration to patients
(see FF 8). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that following the teachings
of the prior art would have resulted in a composition having a complexed
form encompassed by claim 1.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that Ladd’s
peptides and Krieg’s oligonucleotides have the positive and negative charges
required by claim 1. Appellants’ argument is not supported by the evidence
of record, however.
As noted above, and pointed out by the Examiner, Ladd discloses that
one of its cancer-treating peptides has the same sequence as one of the
peptides recited in Appellant’s claim 19, and is a peptide disclosed by
Appellant as having the properties recited for the peptides in claim 1 (see FF
19). As also noted above, and also pointed out by the Examiner, Krieg
discloses that one of its cancer-treating oligonucleotides has the same
sequence as the oligonucleotide recited in Appellant’s claim 13 (see FF 11),
and is an oligonucleotide disclosed by Appellant as one of the two most
preferred oligonucleotides having the properties recited in claim 1 (see FF
7).
Because Ladd’s peptide has a structure that is identical to the structure
of a peptide disclosed and claimed by Appellant as having the properties
recited in claim 1, Ladd’s peptide must therefore also have the properties
recited in claim 1, including the required positive charge. Similarly, by
virtue of its identical structure, Krieg’s oligonucleotide must have the same
14
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

properties as the oligonucleotide recited in claim 1, including the negative
charge.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
combining Ladd’s peptide and Krieg’s oligonucleotide, as suggested by the
prior art, would result in a complex encompassed by claim 1. While it might
be true that Appellant’s purpose for combining the agents, producing a
stable complex, is different than the reason suggested by the references, that
fact does not undermine the Examiner’s prima facie case. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 419 (“In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the
claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.”).
We are also not persuaded that Jones’ disclosure shows error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obvious. While it might be true that a significant
amount of experimentation was required, Jones’ ultimate conclusion was
that “oligodeoxynucleotides containing CpG motifs improve
immunogenicity of peptide immunogens in non-human primates, and may
be immunopotentiators useful in humans” (FF 22). Jones therefore bolsters
rather than weakens the Examiner’s prima facie case, given Krieg’s explicit
disclosure that such oligonucleotides were useful in therapeutic treatments.
Appellant suggests that the claimed complex has unexpected
properties, as shown by a higher antibody titer, and by the elicited
antibodies’ virus neutralization activity (App. Br. 13). However, Appellant
has not explained in any detail the significance of any data presented.
Moreover, “any superior property must be unexpected to be
considered as evidence of non-obviousness.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
15
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, “[m]ere improvement in
properties does not always suffice to show unexpected results. . . . [W]hen
an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results . . . and states that
the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected
results in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746,
751 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Krieg explicitly discloses that its oligonucleotides act as adjuvants,
and can improve the efficacy of anti-cancer therapies, including vaccines
(FF 12, 14). In view of this disclosure, combined with the lack of any clear
explanation as to why any improvement shown in the Specification might be
unexpected in light of Krieg’s disclosure, we are not persuaded that
Appellant has presented sufficient evidence to overcome the Examiner’s
prima facie case.
In sum, we are not persuaded that the Examiner failed to make a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1, nor are we
persuaded that Appellant has adequately advanced sufficient evidence of
secondary considerations to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie case. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Krieg
and Ladd.
Because they were not argued separately, claims 5, 7-9, 12, 13, 18,
and 19 fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner separately rejected claims 1, 4, and 6 as being obvious
over Krieg and Ladd (Ans. 8-9). The Examiner relied on Ladd to show that
an ordinary artisan would have considered it obvious to provide a mixture of
peptides, as recited in claim 4, and that a mixture of Ladd’s peptides would
have the positive charge recited in claim 6 (id.; see also FF 21).
16
Appeal 2009-006283
Application 10/076,674

Appellants rely on their previous arguments in traversing this
rejection (see App. Br. 13-14). As discussed above, Appellant’s arguments
do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 1 would
have been obvious to an ordinary artisan in view of Krieg and Ladd. As we
detect no other deficiency in the Examiner’s prima facie case with respect to
claims 4 and 6, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of those claims as well.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 4-9, 12,
13, 18, and 19 over Krieg and Ladd.
TIME PERIOD
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

cdc

MORGAN & FINNEGAN Transition Team
C/O Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell
3 WORLD FINANCIAL CENTER
NEW YORK NY 10281-2101
17