Appeal No. 95-4473
Application 08/003,894
monoclonal antibodies produced by hybridoma cell line ATCC No. HB 11106, hybridoma
cell line ATCC No. HB 11107, or hybridoma cell line ATCC No. HB 11108; and (II) claims
1 through 8, 17 through 25, 27 through 29, and 33, drawn to methods reciting families of
monoclonal antibodies defined functionally. The former claims are strictly limited to the
specified monoclonal antibodies, produced by the specified hybridoma cell lines, and do
not extend to "functional equivalents." The latter claims embrace families of monoclonal
antibodies, related by their capability of binding to specified epitopic sites and having a
specified low level of cross-reactivity with liver alkaline phosphatase. It may be said that
the latter claims read on monoclonal antibodies produced by hybridoma cell line ATCC
No. HB 11106, hybridoma cell line ATCC No. HB 11107, or hybridoma cell line ATCC No.
HB 11108 or " functional equivalents" thereof. For the purposes of this appeal, it is
important to keep in mind the distinction between these groups of claims because the
latter are broader and more vulnerable to the cited prior art.
Respecting claims 9 through 16, 26, 30 through 32 and 34, it is incumbent on the
examiner to explain how the applied prior art describes (35 USC § 102) or would have
suggested (35 USC § 103) and enabled a person having ordinary skill to prepare
the specific monoclonal antibodies produced by hybridoma cell line ATCC No. HB 11106,
hybridoma cell line ATCC No. HB 11107 or hybridoma cell line ATCC No. HB 11108.
Again, these claims recite three specific monoclonal antibodies, no more and no less; they
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007