Appeal No. 1995-2437
Application No. 08/035,723
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1 through
8, all the claims pending in the application. Claims 1 and 5 are representative of the
subject matter on appeal and read as follows:
1. A method of increasing activation or proliferation of T cells in a non-human
mammal without causing immunosuppression comprising administering a molecular
conjugate having a polymer backbone or microbead coupled with a plurality of binding
molecules which lack an Fc portion, each being specific for an antigen on a T cell.
5. A method of increasing the in vivo antibody response against an antigen
comprising administering a molecular conjugate comprising a polymer backbone or
microbead coupled with a plurality of binding molecules which lack an Fc portion, each
being specific for an antigen on a non-human mammalian T cell.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Goers et al. (Goers) 4,867,973 Sep. 19, 1989
J.M. Williams, et al. (Williams), “The Events of Primary T Cell Activation Can Be Staged by
Use of Sepharose-Bound Anti-T3 (64.1) Monoclonal Antibody and Purified Interleukin 1,”
Journal of Immunology, Vol. 135, No. 4, (1985), pp. 2249-2255.
T. Geppert, et al. (Geppert), “Accessory Cell Independent Proliferation of Human T4 Cells
Stimulated by Immobilized Monoclonal Antibodies to CD3,” Journal of Immunology, Vol.
138, No. 6, (1987), pp. 1660-1666.
Roitt, Immunology, Gower Medical Publishing (1995), page 8.7, figure 8.19.
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies on Williams, Geppert, Goers and Roitt. Claims 1
through 8 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) as evidenced by the
Wedrychowski declaration. Finally, claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007