REMARKS
`
`The present response adds claim 190. Claims 1-182, 184, 186, 187, 189 and 190 remain
`
`pending in the captioned case. Claims 4-32, 36-64, 69, 74, 76, 83-93, 96, 99-104, 109-112, 116,
`
`117, 124, 125, 131, 140-142, 144-154, 157, 159-168, 170-172 and 174-182 remain withdrawn.
`
`Further examination and reconsideration of the presently claimed application are respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`Specific support for added claim 190 may be found at the specification as filed, with
`
`particular support found at 1111 [0548] and [0554] and in the sequence listing. Accordingly, this
`
`added claim constitutes no new matter.
`
`The Examiner has noted in the present Office Action dated November 08, 2010 that
`
`reference was made in the amendment and response by Applicants dated 10/28/ 10 to “claim 190
`
`is added herein” and no claim 190 was added. The reference to “claim 190” was an
`
`unintentional typographical error at page 33 (1St paragraph), as only claim 189 was added, and
`
`added claim 189 was correctly referred to at pages 33 (211d paragraph) of the response dated
`
`10/28/10.
`
`M31
`
`The Office Action dated November 08, 2010 only grants priority to the claims to the
`
`instant application filed on 10/01/2008 as the “as the elected species ‘lysozyme’ was only
`
`disclosed in US Provisional Application No.: 60/976,676 filed on 10/01/2007 and the limitation
`
`in the amended claim 1
`
`‘... wherein the antimicrobial peptide comprises a peptide sequence of
`
`SEQ ID NO: 40 has been disclosed for the first time in the instant application filed on
`
`10/01/2008.’” The Examiner’s reply to Applicants’ arguments made at page 33 of the response
`
`dated 10/28/ 10, states that the paragraph notations were not present in the original specification
`
`of US Patent Application 10/665,345. Applicants apologize for not providing the citation of the
`
`page and line numbers in the specification of US Patent Application No. 10/655,345, and
`
`erroneously citing the paragraphs of corresponding Patent application publication no.
`
`20040109853 (“USPGPUB 20040109853”). The Examiner further states that Applicants
`
`REMARKS for the response dated 10/28/ 10 were “incorrect and misleading.” Applicants
`
`provide evidence in the passages below that any errors in correct citation of text in the
`
`32
`
`

`

`REMARKS of the response dated 10/28/ 10 arose without deceptive intent on part of Applicants.
`
`Applicants have attached a copy of the specification of US Patent Application No 10/655,345
`
`(“US 10/655,354”) as Exhibit A for the convenience of the Examiner in referring to the citations
`
`made herein. Applicants will provide additional clarification in the remarks below regarding the
`
`REMARKS of the response dated 10/28/ 10 in support of the priority claim to US Patent
`
`Application 10/665,345 regarding a coatings with an enzyme, lysozyme, and that this assertion
`
`of priority is based on the disclosures of US Patent Application 10/665,345 as filed, and that
`
`these citation of passages were made without deceptive intent.
`
`The Examiner reviewed the cited paragraphs in USPGPUB 20040109853 and found
`
`1] [0273] is drawn to a method of cell lysis using lysozyme in host cells expressing the
`
`polypeptide of interest and does not recite “A coating composition comprising lysozyme.” The
`
`text of interest of 1] [0273] USPGPUB 20040109853 is found in US 10/655,354 at page 82, lines
`
`16-18 and states: “Examples of a biological cell disruption method include contacting the cell
`
`with one or more enzymes (e.g., lysozyme) that weaken, damage, and/or permeabilize a cell
`
`membrane, cell wall or combination thereof.”
`
`Applicants noted at page 33 of the response dated 10/28/ 10 that: “However, the instant
`
`application is a Continuation in Part of US Patent Application 10/655,345 filed on 09/04/2003,
`
`which discloses the enzyme, lysozyme, at paragraph [0273].”
`
`Applicants maintain that this assertion is factually based and not misleading, as this text
`
`does disclose lysozyme as an example of enzymes, specifically ones that have the ability to
`
`“weaken, damage, and/or permeabilize a cell membrane, cell wall or combination thereof” The
`
`Examiner states in the present Office action that this text does not recite “A coating composition
`
`comprising lysozyme.” That the specific sentence disclosing lysozyme does not recite “a
`
`coating” in it is immaterial in light of the teachings of US 10/655,354 that explicitly disclose a
`
`coating with an enzyme, that “enzyme” encompasses any enzyme, and that lysozyme is disclosed
`
`as an enzyme. In particular, 1] [0120] ofUSPGPUB 20040109853, found in US 10/655,354 at
`
`page 35, lines 7-11, states: “The selection of a biomolecule for use in the present invention
`
`depends on the desired property that is to be conferred to a composition of the present invention.
`
`A preferred biomolecule of the present invention comprise an enzyme, as enzymatic activity is a
`
`preferred property to be conferred to a biomolecule composition, coating and/or paint in the
`
`present invention.”
`
`33
`
`

`

`The Examiner argues that fl “[0127] is drawn to coating compositions comprising
`
`‘oxidoreductase’ and not ‘lysozyme’; and paragraph [0130] is drawn to coating compositions
`9”
`comprising ‘ligase’ and not ‘lysozyme. Applicants state at page 33 of the response dated
`
`10/28/10 that: “That the composition of the claims comprises an enzyme is disclosed throughout
`
`the specification of US Patent Application 10/655,345, such as at paragraphs [0120] and [0127]
`
`t_0 [0132].” (Emphasis added).
`
`Paragraphs [0127] to [0132] of USPGPUB 20040109853, found in US 10/655,354 at
`
`page 37, line 20 to page 38, line 36, describe various enzymes (z'.e., an oxidoreductase, a
`
`transferase, a hydrolase, a lyase, an isomerase, a ligase) that encompass the major categories of
`
`enzymes by activity and the Enzyme Commission classification system (e. g., EC 1, EC 2, EC 3,
`
`EC 4, EC 5, EC 6); and further lists the sub-genera of enzymes by their activity substrate(s) and
`
`according to the Enzyme Commission numbering system (z'.e., EC 1.1, EC 1.2, EC 1.3, EC 1.4,
`
`EC 1.5, EC 1.6, EC 1.7, EC 1.8,EC 1.9, EC 1.10, EC 1.11, EC 1.12, EC 1.13,EC 1.14, EC 1.15,EC
`
`1.16, EC 1.17, EC 1.18, EC 1.19, EC 1.20, EC 1.21, EC 1.97, EC 2.1, EC 2.2, EC 2.3, EC 2.4, EC
`
`2.5, EC 2.6, EC 2.7, EC 2.8, EC 2.9, EC 3.1, EC 3.2, EC 3.3, EC 3.4, EC 3.5, EC 3.6, EC 3.7, EC
`
`3.8, EC 3.9, EC 3.10, EC 3.11, EC 3.12, EC 3.13, EC 4.1, EC 4.2, EC 4.3, EC 4.4, EC 4.5, EC 4.6,
`
`EC 4.99, EC 5.1, EC 5.2, EC 5.3, EC 5.4, EC 5.5, EC 5.99, EC 6.1, EC 6.2, EC 6.3, EC 6.4, EC 6.5).
`
`These paragraphs were cited by Applicants as support of the inclusive breadth of the enzyme to
`
`be incorporated into a coating as taught in US 10/655,354 to the use of any enzyme, as these
`
`examples of enzymes genera and sub-genera specified by the disclosed EC Commission numbers
`
`encompass virtually all known enzyme species.
`
`Further submitted herein as support that “enzyme” encompasses various enzymes,
`
`Applicants draw the Examiner’s attention to paragraph [0125] of USPGPUB 20040109853, also
`
`found in US 10/655,354 at page 37, lines 1-9:
`
`“In some embodiments, enzymes may be described by the classification system of
`The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (“IUBMB”). The
`IUBMB classifies enzymes by the type of reaction catalyzed and enumerates each
`sub-class by a designated enzyme commission number (“EC”). The IUBMB
`classification of various enzymes may be obtained using the computerized database
`at http://www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iubmb/enzyme/. Based on these broad categories, an
`enzyme may comprise an oxidoreductase (EC 1), a transferase (EC 2), a hydrolase
`(EC 3), a lyase (EC 4), an isomerase (EC 5), a ligase (EC 6), or a combination
`thereof.”
`
`34
`
`

`

`Additionally evidenced herein, claims 1, 2, 8, 10, and 11 at page 262, lines 3-7, 24-25,
`
`and 31-36 of US 10/655,354 as filed on 09/04/2003 specify coatings with the various enzymes of
`
`the major enzyme categories, as well as various active biomolecules (i.e., peptide, polypeptide,
`
`protein), as shown below:
`
`1.
`
`A coating comprising a biomolecule composition, wherein the
`
`biomolecule composition comprises an active biomolecule.
`
`2.
`
`The coating of claim 1, wherein the active biomolecule comprises a
`
`proteinaceous molecule.
`
`8.
`
`The coating of claim 2, wherein the proteinaceous molecule comprises a
`
`peptide, a polypeptide, a protein, or a combination thereof.
`
`10.
`
`The coating of claim 8, wherein the proteinaceous molecule comprises an
`
`enzyme.
`
`11.
`
`The coating of claim 10, wherein the enzyme comprises an oxidoreductase, a
`
`transferase, a hydrolase, a lyase, an isomerase, a ligase, or a combination thereof.
`
`Moreover, attached hereto is Exhibit B, a copy of the EC classification web-pages for
`
`enzymes under EC 3 (i.e., hydrolases) wherein enzymes of EC 3.2 (i.e., glycosylases) are a sub-
`
`type, and wherein lysozyme is sub-classified under the further sub-category of EC 3.2.1 (i.e.,
`
`glycosidases), specifically as EC 3.2.1.17 (i.e., lysozyme), further demonstrating that lysozyme
`
`is an enzyme, and more particularly, an enzyme within the categories of enzymes described and
`
`originally claimed in coatings as noted above.
`
`Further, as 1] [0120] ofUSPGPUB 20040109853, found in US 10/655,354 at page 35,
`
`lines 7-11 states:
`
`The selection of a biomolecule for use in the present invention depends on the
`desired property that is to be conferred to a composition of the present invention
`enzymatic activity is a preferred property to be conferred to a biomolecule
`composition, coating and/or paint in the present invention.
`
`And the selection of biomolecules including enzymes with different activities for
`
`incorporation into coatings is further described at 1111 [0034]-[0035] of USPGPUB 20040109853,
`
`found in US 10/655,354 at page 16, lines 28-42:
`
`In certain embodiments, the active biomolecule comprises a combination of active
`biomolecules. The combination of biomolecules may be of the same type, such as a
`
`35
`
`

`

`combination of enzymes. The combination may be of different biomolecules or may
`be of different types of biomolecules such as a receptor ligand and an enzyme, a
`receptor and an antibody, an enzyme and a combination of antibodies, etc. All
`iterations of active biomolecules may be selected to confer to a coating a
`combination of bioactivities as desired. In general embodiments, a composition of
`the present invention may comprise 1 to 100 or more different selected biomolecules
`of interest, including all intermediate ranges and combinations thereof
`
`In some embodiments, the proteinaceous molecule comprises an enzyme. In
`particular embodiments, the enzyme comprises an oxidoreductase, a transferase, a
`hydrolase, a lyase, an isomerase, a ligase, or a combination thereof”
`
`And, as previously noted, 11 [0273] USPGPUB 20040109853, found in US 10/655,354 at
`
`page 82, lines 16-18 states: “Examples of a biological cell disruption method include contacting
`
`the cell with one or more enzymes (e.g., lysozyme) that weaken, damage, and/or permeabilize a
`
`cell membrane, cell wall or combination thereof.”
`
`The disclosures of US 10/655,354 clearly include the description that one or more
`
`biomolecules including enzyme(s) are selected to confer property(s) to a coating; the disclosure
`
`of lysozyme as an enzyme; the description of a property of enzymes that include lysozyme to
`
`“weaken, damage, and/or permeabilize a cell membrane, cell wall or a combination thereof’; and
`
`the description of incorporation of enzymes that would include lysozyme in that genus of
`
`enzymes, additionally supported by the Exhibit B of enzymes according to EC classification of
`
`which lysozyme is also classified, as would be known in the art of enzymes. These disclosures
`
`amply demonstrate that the inclusion of the lysozyme as an enzyme into a coating; as well as
`
`conferring to a coating an enzymatic property, with “weaken, damage, and/or permeabilize a cell
`
`membrane, cell wall or a combination thereof’ being taught as a property of lysozyme and other
`
`enzymes; was encompassed by the disclosures of US 10/655,354.
`
`Applicants respectfully request that priority for at least "lysozyme" be corrected to at
`
`least the filing date of 09/04/2003 for US Patent Application 10/655,345.
`
`Withdrawn Claim Re'ections Under 35 U.S.C. 112 First Para ra h and
`
`102 and 103
`
`Applicants respectfully acknowledge and appreciate the withdrawal of previous
`
`rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 112 first paragraph, and 35 § 102 and 103.
`
`36
`
`

`

`Objection to the Specification
`
`Claims 2 and 189 was objected to for reciting non-elected subject-matter, and the
`
`Examiner has directed that “appropriate correction is required.” Applicants maintain that a claim
`
`may containing elected subject matter may also contain non-elected subject matter during
`
`examination (see MPEP § 803.02).
`
`Applicants respectfully request that this objection be withdrawn.
`
`Double Patenting Rejection
`
`Claims 1-3, 35, 65-68, 70-73, 75, 77-82, 94, 95, 97, 98, 105-108, 113-115, 118-123, 126-
`
`130, 132-139, 143, 155, 156, 158, 169, 173, 184 and 186, 187 and 189 are provisionally rejected
`
`under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
`
`over claims 1-98 of McDaniel et al., (US Application No.: 12/696,651). Applicants will file a
`
`terminal disclaimer to obviate the rejection upon receiving notice that some or all of the claims
`
`in the captioned application are allowed.
`
`Section 1031a) Rejections
`
`Claims 1-3, 35, 65-68, 70-73, 75, 77-82, 94, 95, 97, 98, 105-108, 113-115, 118-123, 126-
`
`130, 132-139, 143, 155, 156, 158, 169, 173, 184, 186, 187 and 189 were rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as being anticipated by McDaniel et al., (Prog. Org. Coatings., 2006, Vol. 55:
`
`182-188), Bonaventura et al. (US Patent No.: 5,998,200), Sherba et al., (US Patent No.:
`
`5,069,717), Dalla Riva Toma, JM., (US Patent No.: 6,054,504) and in view of Edwards D., (US
`
`Patent No.: 6,020,312). Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection. To establish a prima
`
`facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the
`
`prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 U.S.P.Q. 580 (C.C.P.A. 1974), MPEP 2143.03.
`
`Obviousness cannot be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to
`
`produce the claimed invention, absent some teaching or suggestion or incentive to do so. In re
`
`Bond, 910 F. 2d 81,834, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`The Examiner cites McDaniel et al. “as disclosing active enzymes and other bioactive
`
`molecules sequestered in paint and coatings including lysozyme and antimicrobial peptides
`
`(Abstract, page 187, column 2, and first paragraph).” The Examiner fiarther argues at page 12 of
`
`the instant Office Action that:
`
`37
`
`

`

`McDaniel et al., provides Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation for preparing
`enzyme based additives for paint and coatings, and as proof of principle has
`shown active enzymes and other active biomolecules sequestered in paints and
`coatings and have reported the design and characterization of biological additives
`for latex coatings which impart catalytic detoxification or biodefensive
`capabilities to surfaces (Abstact, page 182 and entire document).
`
`The Examiner cites the above characterization of McDaniel et al., for providing
`
`“Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation” as part of a “string of continuity” at pages 15 and 16 in
`
`combining this reference with Bonaventural et al., which is said to teach “antifouling
`
`compositions and methods for preventing fouling that comprises affixing biologically active
`
`chemical to a surface intended for use (coating composition or paint), wherein the chemical is
`
`an enzyme, said enzyme is a lysozyme (Abstract, Table III) and preparation of said coating
`
`compositions by immobilization in polyurethane (column 19, Example V; claims, columns 36-
`
`38);” Sherba et al. which is said to teach “a synergistic antialgal compositions comprising
`
`small molecules that have antialgal activity and lysozyme enzyme (Abstract), said
`
`compositions in the form antifouling compositions and use of said compositions in construction
`
`produces such as stucco, roof mastics, wall mastics and masonry coatings (column 4, lines 27-
`
`30),” and Dalla Riva Toma, JM., which is said to “clearly suggest various biostatic compositions
`
`comprising biostatic agents and methods for conjugating said biostatic agents to various
`
`functional groups of hydrophilic polymers, said functional group capable of reacting with and
`
`covalently bonding to an antimicrobial agent without effectively reducing antimicrobial property
`
`(Abstract); said hydrophilic polymer can be, but not limited to a polyurethane, a maleic
`
`anhydride, a polyol, a polyamine, an acrylate, an ethylene oxide or modified forms of said
`
`polymers (column 3, line 29-34) and suitable solvents (column 3, lines 45-50) and claims
`
`(columns 12-18),” Edwards D., disclose the isolation and structure of an antifungal peptide
`
`having 100% sequence homology to SEQ ID NO: 40 of the instant invention (see provided
`
`sequence alignment), said reference also teaches the use of said peptide in various compositions
`
`as an antimicrobial agent (Abstract) in the form of coating mixture comprising a noninterfering
`
`carrier and an effective quantity of the antimicrobial composition (columns 7 and 10), method
`
`for encapsulation of said antimicrobial peptide (column 27-28).”
`
`38
`
`

`

`Applicants submit that, as described above in the remarks for the priority claim of the
`
`instant application, the instant application is a Continuation in Part of US Patent Application
`
`10/655,345 filed on 09/04/2003, which discloses coatings and paints comprising enzyme(s),
`
`which includes lysozyme as it is a disclosed enzyme. Further, as demonstrated in the cited
`
`passages of US Patent Application 10/655,345 in the remarks for the priority claim, US Patent
`
`Application 10.655,345 teaches paints and coatings with, various active biomolecules, including
`
`proteinaceous molecules, peptides, proteins, polypeptides, antibodies, and receptors (see the
`
`remarks above regarding cited passages of 1111 [0034]-[0035] of USPGPUB 20040109853, found
`
`in US 10/655,354 at page 16, lines 28-42; and claims 1, 2, 8, 10, and 11 at page 262, lines 3-7,
`
`24-25, and 31-36 of US 10/655,354). As the filing date of 09/04/2003 for US Patent Application
`
`10/655,345 predates that of McDaniel et al., the combinability of McDaniel et al. with
`
`Bonaventura et al., Sherba et al., and Dalla Riva Toma, JM., in view of Edwards D. fails, and the
`
`“Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation” argued as provided by McDaniel et al. is removed from
`
`the rej ection’s “string of continuity” in combining the teachings of McDaniel et al., Bonaventura
`
`et al., Sherba et al., and Dalla Riva Toma, JM., in view of Edwards D.
`
`Applicants respectfully note the Examiner's acknowledgement at p. 9 of the Action that
`
`McDaniel et al., Bonaventura et al., Sherba et al., and Dalla Riva Toma, JM "are silent regarding
`
`said coating compositions comprising an antimicrobial peptide having the peptide sequence of
`
`SEQ ID NO:40." Applicants also note that Edwards D. is also silent regarding lysozyme or any
`
`enzyme being suitable in the compositions it describes, and thus does not teach, suggest, or
`
`provide any motivation to a skilled artisan to combine the compositions and peptides of Edwards
`
`D. with the lysozyme or compositions described in the other cited references.
`
`In this context, even if the teachings of McDaniel et al., were available for combination
`
`with the teachings of McDaniel et al., Bonaventura et al., Sherba et al., and Dalla Riva Toma, JM
`
`in view of Edwards D., these references do not provide a skilled artisan any motivation to
`
`combine their compositions with the peptide of Edwards, nor does any of these references alone
`
`or in combination with the teachings of Edwards provides a reasonable expectation of success
`
`in achieving antimicrobial activity if such a combination was made. The Examiner
`
`characterizes, at page 14 of the instant Office Action, Applicants’ previous arguments made in
`
`the response dated 10/2 8/ 1 0 as directed to the references individually, though Applicants
`
`respectfully submit that the arguments made at, for example, pages 58-59 of the response dated
`
`39
`
`

`

`10/28/10, as well as the present arguments made herein, address the combination of teachings of
`
`the cited references in demonstrating non-obviousness of the invention of the independent
`
`claims.
`
`Applicants find that Bonaventura et al., does not teach, suggest, or provide any
`
`motivation for combining an antimicrobial peptide of the present claims in any of its
`
`compositions. Applicants find that Sherba et al. does not teach, suggest, or provide any
`
`motivation for combining an antimicrobial peptide of the present claims in any of its
`
`compositions, and that the "small molecules" relate to a chemical agent, not a peptide of the
`
`present claims. Applicants find that Dalla Riva Toma, JM. does not teach, suggest, or provide
`
`any motivation for combining an antimicrobial peptide or an enzyme of the present claims in any
`
`of its compositions. Applicants find none of these references teach or suggest any antimicrobial
`
`peptide, let alone an antimicrobial peptide of the present claims. The compositions of
`
`Bonaventura et al., and Sherba et al, though arguably related via having anti-fouling or antialgal
`
`properties, are generally directed toward marine/water contacting materials (see Bonaventura et
`
`al., column 2 lines 39-63; and Sherba et al. column 2, lines 1-13) are distinctly different than the
`
`compositions of Dalla Riva Toma, JM' that is directed to compositions for a medical device (see
`
`column 9, lines 1-7; and column 1, lines 12-16).
`
`The Examiner argues for the obviousness to combine the above cited references with the
`
`teachings of Edwards D. at the bridging paragraph, page 9 to 10, stating:
`
`Hence, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`combine the teaching in the cited references to generate a coating compositions or
`paints comprising: i) polypeptides having enzymatic activities like lipase,
`lysozyme, libiase, esterase, hydrolase. .. and ii) antimicrobial peptide having
`antimicrobial activity against any microorganism and iii) said antimicrobial
`polypeptide comprising the sequence of SEQ ID No: 40. Motivation to do so
`derives from the fact that coating compositions or paints comprising non-toxic
`antimicrobial/antifouling agents such as enzyme and antimicrobial peptides have
`wide use in various industrial applications. The expectation of success is high,
`because methods and design for producing coating compositions or paints
`comprising: i) polypeptides having enzymatic activities like lipase, lysozyme,
`libiase, esterase, hydrolase. .. and ii) antimicrobial peptide having antimicrobial
`activity against any microorganism were well known in the art (McDaniel et al.,
`Bonaventura et al., Sherba et al., and Dalla Riva Toma, JM.,) and iii) the structure
`of the key antimicrobial peptide comprising the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 40 is
`also well known in the art (Edwards D.).
`
`40
`
`

`

`Edwards D. is argued at page 9 of the instant Office action as teaching the “use of said
`
`peptide. . .as an antimicrobial agent. . .in the form of a coating mixture comprising a
`
`noninterfering carrier and an effective quantity of the antimicrobial composition.” Applicants
`
`note that the term “coating mixture” of Edwards D. refers to a carrier for use on plants or animals
`
`(Edwards D. columns 7 and 10). As stated at Edwards D., column 10, lines 40-44: “The method
`
`comprises coating plant part of organ with the peptide compositions of the invention in a coating
`
`mixture comprising a noninterfering carrier and an effective quantity of the antimicrobial
`
`composition.” (Emphasis added)
`
`The applicability of the peptides taught by Edwards D. is only to limited materials for use
`
`on plants and animals, and moreover, this applicability is further limited to particular types of
`
`carriers, as evidenced by the Edwards D. teaching away from other carrier materials that may
`
`interfere with the peptide, as described in column 7 of Edwards D., shown below:
`
`"The antibiotic compositions of the invention may also comprise a carrier. In
`certain instances, the carrier will be one suitable for pharmaceutical applications.
`In other instances, the carrier will be one suitable for use in applying the
`antibiotic compositions onto plants. In either instance, the carrier selected
`must be a carrier whose chemical and/or physical characteristics do not
`significantly interfere with the antibiotic activity of the peptide composition.
`It is known, for instance that certain microsphere carriers may be effectively
`utilized with proteinaceous compositions in order to deliver these compositions to
`a site of preferred activity such as onto a topical surface of a plant or animal.
`Liposomes have been similarly utilized to deliver labile antibiotics by injection or
`inhalation to internal sites within an organism. Saline solutions, pharmaceutically
`acceptable buffers and solvents and the like may also be utilized as carriers for the
`peptide compositions of the invention." (Emphasis added)
`
`These teachings of Edwards D are in direct opposition to the Examiner’s assertion of the
`
`combinability of the teaching of Edwards D with the other cited references with any reasonable
`
`expectation of success, let alone an expectation of “high” success as asserted by the Examiner.
`
`The Examiner’s describes the rational for this rejection as described at points 1-3 at page 21 of
`
`the instant action:
`
`(1) Combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predicable
`results.
`
`(2) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`results.
`
`(3) “Obvious to try’ — choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`solution, with a reasonable expectation of success. (Offle Action, pg. 21)
`
`41
`
`

`

`The teachings of Edwards D. above clearly demonstrates that this rational does not
`
`succeed in making the claimed invention obvious, as the peptides Edward D. in the coatings in
`
`the other cited references would not produce a predictable result of no change to the function of
`
`antimicrobial activity in such coatings with any reasonable expectation of success, in light of the
`
`suitability of the peptides to limited types the materials due to the interference of certain carriers,
`
`as taught by Edward D. Further, the teachings of Bonaventura et al., and Sherba et al. to
`
`enzymes and/or lysozyme; and Dalla Riva Toma, JM. to biostatic agents, in compositions and/or
`
`coatings, either alone as separate references or in combination with each other and Edwards D.
`
`and/ or McDaniel et al. does not overcome these deficiencies to make the combination of a
`
`peptide with an enzyme in a coating would produce a reasonable expectation of success, by a
`
`predictable result of no change to the function of antimicrobial activity. In particular, it is known
`
`in the art of coating compositions that the efficacy and duration of antimicrobial activity within
`
`coatings is highly dependent on the compatibility of antimicrobial agents within the coating
`
`media, as evidenced by US. Patent 3,988,294 to Hill (hereinafter "Hill") submitted as Exhibit C,
`
`previously provided to the Examiner in the Information Disclosure Statement dated 11/04/2010
`
`as US. Patent Number Citation 2. Applicants cite the teaching Hill that underscores that there is
`
`not such an expectation for success in incorporating a fungicide in a coating such as a paint, and
`
`notes that expectation of success is quite low.
`
`The fungicide must be compatible with the paint medium and retain its activity
`during normal container storage life. Many fungicides lose their fiangicidal
`activity prior to application of the paint as a protective or decorative coating.
`Loss of activity during storage in the container is of particular concern in the case
`of latex paint because of its alkalinity and water content. Furthermore, many
`fungicides decompose in aqueous alkaline systems. .
`. .Therefore, the fact that a
`particular chemical compound may be known to possess fiangicidal activity does
`not necessarily mean that it will be effective in inhibiting fungal growth on
`exterior coating surfaces for long periods of time. In fact, most known fungicides
`are not useful in paint for one or more of the above-mentioned reasons (Hill - col.
`1, lines 43-68).
`
`Applicants submit that without such an expectation of success, as was understood to
`
`those of skill in the art, the combination of the references cited in the rejection are fail to meet
`
`the teaching, suggestion, and motivation rational argued by the Examiner.
`
`Further, in direct contrast to these teachings by Edwards D. and Hill, the instant
`
`application demonstrates that the combination of an antimicrobial enzyme and an antimicrobial
`
`42
`
`

`

`peptide not only demonstrate activity in a coating, but produces greater antimicrobial effects in a
`
`coating composition than the activities of an antimicrobial enzyme or an antimicrobial peptide
`
`by themselves as described at 11[0416] and demonstrated at example 14. As noted in the
`
`M.P.E.P. 11 716.02(a):
`
`A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal
`conclusion of obviousness
`of the claims at issue.’ In re Corkz'll, 711 F.2d 1496,
`
`226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In Corkhill, the claimed combination showed
`an additive result when a diminished result would have been expected. This result
`was persuasive of nonobviousness even though the result was equal to that of one
`component alone. Evidence of a greater than expected result may also be shown
`by demonstrating an effect which is greater than the sum of each of the effects
`taken separately (i.e., demonstrating “synergism”). Merck & C0. Inc. v. Biocraft
`Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493
`US. 975 (1989).
`
`For at least the reasons set forth above, none of cited art, taken alone or in combination,
`
`teaches or suggests the limitations of the independent claims 1, 155-182, 184, 186, and 189
`
`specifically a peptide composition of SEQ ID no. 40 or a fianctionally equivalent conservative amino
`
`acid substituted peptide sequence in combination with an antimicrobial enzyme, in the specified
`
`coating compositions of these independent claims. As such, independent claims 1, 155-182, 184 and
`
`186 are patentably distinct over the cited art. For at least the same reasons, claims dependent from
`
`these independent claims are also patentably distinct over the cited art as well. Accordingly,
`
`removal ofthe 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection ofclaims 1-3, 35, 65-68, 70-73, 75, 77-82, 94, 95, 97,
`
`98,105-108,113-115,118-123,126-130,132-139,143,155,156,158,169,173,184 and 186-189 is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The present amendment and response is believed to be a complete response to the issues
`
`raised in the final Office Action mailed November 08, 2010. If the Examiner has any questions,
`
`comments or suggestions, the undersigned attorney earnestly requests a telephone conference.
`
`The Commissioner is authorized to charge any fees which may be required, or credit any
`
`overpayment, to deposit account no. 50-3268.
`
`43
`
`

`

`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/C. Steven McDaniel/
`
`C. Steven McDaniel
`
`Reg. No. 33,962
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`Customer No. 13598
`
`Date: May 91 2011
`
`44
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket