Appeal No. 1997-3542
Application No. 08/192,507
examiner may not resort to speculation, unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). With
this as background, we analyze the prior art applied by the examiner in the rejection of the
claims on appeal.
As background, the anti-IgM antibody conjugate, as claimed, may be used, for
example, for in vivo suppression of IgM producing cells (specification page 11), as
cytotoxic radiopharmaceuticals for eliminating IgM producing hybridoma cells
(specification, page 12), and in cell sorting procedures to separate IgM producing
hybridoma cells from IgG producing hybridoma cells (specification page 12).
Julius discloses the production and isolation of hybridomas which secrete IgG
monoclonal antibodies which are specific for mouse IgM, do not bind to IgG isotypes, and
which bind to surface IgM on B cells. Julius, page 764, column 1 and page 756, column 2.
Julius assesses the effects of antibodies specific for surface immunoglobulins on B cell
growth and differentiation. The antimouse IgM antibodies of Julius are used to stimulate
splenic B cells and induce DNA synthesis in the B cells. Julius, abstract and page 754,
column 2.
Kung indicates that IgG1 monoclonal rat anti-mouse IgM antibodies Bet 1 and Bet
2 bind to surface IgM on B lymphocytes but do not bind to IgG isotypes. Kung also
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007