Appeal No. 96-2137
Application 07/668,920
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 18, 19,
21 through 38, and 40 through 42. Subsequently, claims 29 through 38, 40, and 42
were canceled, leaving claims 18, 19, 21 through 28, and 41 for our consideration.
Claims 18 and 41 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and read as follows:
18. A method for measuring neoplastic tissue in a mammal, comprising the
steps of:
obtaining an antibody that binds to insoluble intracellular antigens of
necrotic neoplastic tissue but does not substantially bind to living neoplastic tissue,
said antibody being labeled;
contacting said labeled antibody in vivo with necrotic neoplastic tissue of said
mammal, thereby permitting said antibody to bind preferentially to said necrotic
neoplastic tissue; and
measuring the binding of said labeled antibody to said necrotic neoplastic tissue,
wherein the amount of binding of said antibody is indicative of the presence of
neoplastic tissue.
41. The method of Claim 18, wherein said neoplastic tissue comprises a
particular neoplastic cell type, and wherein said antibody exhibits at least twice the
level of binding to a preparation of cell ghosts of said neoplastic cell type than to a
preparation of living cells of said neoplastic cell type in an in vitro assay for determining
the level of antibody binding.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Laster et al. (Laster), “Tumor Necrosis Factor can Induce Both Apoptic and Necrotic
Forms of Cell Lysis,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 141, no. 8, pp. 2629-34 (1988)
Curnow et al. (Curnow), “The Role of Apoptosis in Antibody-Dependent Cellular
Cytotoxicity,” Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 149-55 (1993)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007