Appeal No. 2002-1355 Page 7
Application No. 08/907,783
obtains T2 cells of ATCC as antigen presenting cells, T cells depleted of
autoreactivity, and macrophages as co-stimulatory molecules. However, this
method could not be used to induce a response from T-cells, because the T2
cells CANNOT present antigen (because they lack MHC I and MHC II).” Id.,
pages 7-8. Appellant cites Example III from the present specification as
supporting this argument.
We agree with Appellant that the references cited by the examiner do not
support a prima facie case of obviousness. We note initially that the examiner
appears to overstate the similarities between the claimed method and that of
Yokozeki. The examiner characterizes the reference as disclosing all of the
limitations of the claimed method except that it uses keratinocyte cells instead of
B cells lacking MHC class I and class II antigens, but Yokozeki’s method also
differs by using purified T cells and macrophages, not a blood sample as in the
claimed method. Nonetheless, we can accept the examiner’s characterization of
the reference for present purposes, because we agree with Appellant that the
relied-upon combination of references has a more fundamental flaw.
The record supports Appellant’s position that cells that lack class I and
class II MHC antigens cannot function as antigen-presenting cells. See, e.g., the
specification’s Example III, which is headed “In vitro sensitization induced by T2
cells is mediated by T-cells, and is dependent upon non-T cells to present
antigen.” Page 14. The portion of the specification states that “T-cells admixed
with T2 cells in the absence of non-T cells gave no response, indicating that the
T2 cells are not sufficient for antigen presentation, and autologous non-T cells
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007