Reply to Office Action of November 27, 2017
`
`Application No. 15/121,623
`
`- 23 -
`
`GEUIJEN et al.
`
`The Office next ascribes an overly broad interpretation to the phrase "ligand-induced
`
`receptor function" in support of its claim that it cannot be predicted what "epitope-specific effects"
`
`an antibody will have on the antigen to which it binds. Again here, the Office ignores the disclosure
`
`in the specification which discloses actual bispecific antibodies and binding arms that inhibit
`
`receptor function, in favor of hypothesizing that the disclosure should be summarily discounted
`
`because antibodies may have epitope-specific effects — a claim that is not supported by any direct
`
`evidence as to the claimed invention. Rather, the Office uses a number of references, none of which
`
`discloses bispecific antibodies that bind ErbB-2 and ErbB-3, to attempt to bolster its rejection.
`
`Teachings related to an anti-CD23 antibody on binding of IgE to its receptor (as in the Bettler et al.
`
`reference), or the ability of an anti-CD47 antibody to induce apoptosis of Jurkat T cells or PBMCs
`
`(as in Pettersen et al.) is not relevant here.
`
`Moreover, Applicant respectfully reminds the Office that the claimed antibodies must bind
`
`to specific regions of ErbB-2 and ErbB-3. Therefore, even if there were "epitope-specific effects,"
`
`arguendo, the claimed genus of antibodies recites domains to which the binding arms are required
`
`to bind. The Office attempts to support its erroneous position by citing to Fu et al. (Office Action,,
`
`p. 24). However, Fu discloses antibodies that bind to domain III and not domain I of ErbB-2.
`
`Therefore, any relevance of Fu would be to antibodies that bind an entirely different domain of
`
`ErbB-2 than the claimed invention.
`
`In attempting to support its position that the claims are not adequately described in the
`
`specification, the Office points to evidence that actually supports a showing of adequate description.
`
`The Office points to Table 6 of the specification and states that "while antibodies 'PG2916' and
`
`'PG2971' [which bind domain I of ErbB-2] are both capable of inhibiting proliferation of SKBR-3
`
`cells, the latter is less than half as effective as the former." Applicant respectfully asserts that the
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 4096.0100002/DAS/PAC/E-H
`
`