Appeal No. 96-2137
Application 07/668,920
3. Claim 19.
Claim 19 appears to be redundant to claim 18 in that claim 18 already requires
that the contacting step be performed in vivo. Clarification is needed.
4. Claim 21.
It is not clear what appellants mean by the requirement of claim 21 that the
necrotic tissue is surrounded by living tissue. Which necrotic tissue of claim 18 is
intended to be modified? Presumably this claim is directed to that aspect of claim 18
wherein the labeled antibody is contacted in vivo with necrotic neoplastic tissue of the
mammal. If so, it would appear, by definition, the contacting step of claim 18 already
requires that the necrotic tissue is “surrounded by living tissue.” In other words, is it
possible for necrotic neoplastic tissue not to be “surrounded” by living tissue regardless
of its neoplastic state? Clarification is needed.
5. Claim 41.
Claim 41 is not clear as to antecedent support for the phrase “said neoplastic
tissue comprises a particular neoplastic cell type.” Of the various “neoplastic tissues”
set forth in claim 18, which one is modified by claim 41?
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007