Appeal No. 1995-4273
Application No. 08/046,364
Claims 1, 5 through 7, and 9 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
inoperative, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph , as based on a non-enabling
disclosure. We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We do not reach the merits
of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, first paragraph, and remand this
application to the examiner for reevaluation of those rejections in light of U.S. Patent No.
5,872,222.
35 U.S.C.§ 103
All of the claims on appeal are directed to compositions comprising a microbead
coupled with a plurality of binding molecules specific for CD2, CD3, CD4, CD5, CD8, or
other T-cell antigens. Individual claims require that the microbead is nonimmunogenic in
humans; that the microbead is resistant to hydrolysis in human body fluids; that the binding
molecule is Fv, Fab, or F(ab’) ; etc. All of the claims, however, require that the binding
2
molecules lack Fc portions.
Williams and Geppert each discloses activation of T-cells with anti-CD3 antibodies
bound to Sepharose, but neither discloses T-cell binding molecules lacking Fc portions.
Nor does the examiner rely on Makinen, Goers or Roitt to remedy this
deficiency. The statement of the rejection contains only an oblique reference to binding
molecules that lack Fc portions: “Fv, Fab and F(ab’)2 fragments of antibodies and
methods of producing these fragments are well known in the art.” See the Answer, page 5.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007