Ex parte ARUFFO et al. - Page 6

          Appeal No. 94-1696                                                          
          Application 07/811,129                                                      

               The examiner argues (Answer, p. 3) that                                
               it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of                  
               ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made           
               to apply the teachings of Springer to those of Zettlmeissl,            
               et. [sic] al., to obtain a soluble ICAM-2/IgG fusion                   
               protein, wherein the ICAM-2 molecule is operatively linked             
               to the IgG molecule.  This fusion protein could be used in             
               combination with an anti-CD3 antibody to co-stimulate T-cell           
               activation and thus achieve T-cell proliferation and IL-2              
               From a fair reading of the applied prior art, it is                    
          difficult for us to discern on what basis this conclusion was               
          reached.  As we understand it, the examiner’s overall position is           
          that because it was technologically feasible for those of                   
          ordinary skill in the art to make a fusion protein comprising one           
          type of T cell receptor molecule and an immunoglobulin heavy                
          chain constant region, it would have been obvious to such persons           
          to make fusion proteins comprising any molecule involved in the             
          phenomenon of antigen recognition, regardless of its role (T cell           
          receptor versus ligand; MHC receptor versus ligand for lymphocyte           
          function-related antigens, etc.) or its cellular association (T             
          cell versus endothelial, epithelial, fibroblast, etc.).  In our             
          opinion, the examiner has confused the level of skill in the art            
          with the teachings of the prior art.  In re Kratz, 592 F.2d 1169,           
          1175, 201 USPQ 71, 76 (CCPA 1979) (The court “rejected the                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007