Appeal No. 2002-1355 Page 3
Application No. 08/907,783
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of the
following combinations of references:1
• Claims 1, 15, 18, 19, 32, 44, 47, and 48 in view of Yokozeki, Goronzy,
Schwartz, and the ATCC catalog.
• Claims 3-5 and 33-35 in view of Yokozeki, Goronzy, Schwartz, the
ATCC catalog, Krasteva, and Rietschel.
• Claims 6-10, 14, 36-39, and 43 in view of Yokozeki, Goronzy,
Schwartz, the ATCC catalog, Engleman, and Ho.
• Claims 11-13 and 40-42 in view of Yokozeki, Goronzy, Schwartz, the
ATCC catalog, Krasteva, and Li.
• Claims 20-23, 49-52, and 54 in view of Yokozeki, Goronzy, Schwartz,
the ATCC catalog, and Mehta-Damani.
• Claims 27-31 in view of Yokozeki, Goronzy, Schwartz, the ATCC
catalog, and Del Prete.
We reverse all of the rejections.
Background
“There is a great need for in vitro methods for testing allergenicity of
compounds. . . . In particular, a method is needed to screen for potential
allergens in products intended for topical application, such as cosmetics.”
Specification, page 1. “Allergic contact dermatitis is mediated by T-
lymphocytes. . . . Allergens thus function as antigens to induce a T-lymphocyte
response.” Id., page 2.
“Primary in vitro sensitization is the sensitization of naive T-lymphocytes to
antigens which the donor has never encountered. Other investigators have been
unable to achieve primary in vitro sensitization without the use of dendritic cells.”
1 None of the rejections set out in the Examiner’s Answer included claim 25. Since claim 25 was
rejected in the final Office action (Paper No. 14, mailed Jan. 27, 2000), it is unclear whether or not
the rejection of claim 25 was withdrawn. In view of our disposition of the rejections on appeal,
however, the issue is moot.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007