Appeal No. 96-2137
Application 07/668,920
We also note that appellants state at page 21 of the specification that three so-
called candidate antibodies 877-8, 898-9, 899-4 were identified through this limited
screening. However, appellants have not explained on what basis these three
antibodies were picked as candidates as opposed to the other monoclonal antibodies
listed in Table 1. Were these three antibodies picked because of the values found on
an absolute basis over the negative control values or were they picked on the basis of
a higher ratio of count values of dead cells:live cells?
If the differential binding of the antibody of claim 18 is to be determined on the
basis of the ratio of values obtained for binding to dead cells:live cells for a given cell
line, it is not clear then how to analyze the values given in Table 1 for monoclonal
antibodies such as 898-9. That monoclonal antibody bound strongly to dead cells of
A549 compared with its binding to live cells of A549. However, that antibody bound
more strongly to live cells of SU-DHL-2 than to dead cells of SU-DHL-2. It is not clear
then whether 898-9 would meet the differential binding requirements of claim 18. It
would appear that if the differential binding is measured on the basis of the values
reported for A549 cells, 898-9 meets the requirements of claim 18. However, if the
differential binding is measured on the basis of the values reported for SU-DHL-2, it is
not clear that 898-9 meets the requirements of claim 18. Clarification of this ambiguity
is required.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007