Appeal No. 1995-1977
Application 07/669,403
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Piedrahita et al. (Piedrahita), “Isolation of Embryonic Stem Cell-like Colonies
From Porcine Embryos,” Theriogenology, Vol. 29, No. 1, p. 286 (1988).
Ware et al. (Ware), “Development of Embryonic Stem Cell Lines From Farm
Animals,” Biology of Reproduction, Vol. 38, p. 129 (1988).
Doetschman et al. (Doetschman), “Establishment of Hamster Blastocyst-Derived
Embryonic Stem (ES),” Developmental Biology, Vol. 127, pp. 224-27 (1988).
Evans et al. (Evans), “Establishment in Culture of Pluripotential Cells From
Mouse Embryos,” Nature, Vol. 292, pp. 154-56 (1981).
Claims 1-4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by either Piedrahita or Ware. In the alternative, the same claims
were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being not patentably distinct from the
teachings of the same references.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over either of Ware
or Doetschman, taken in view of Evans.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-4 and 14 and reverse the rejection of
claims 8 and 9.
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ specification states that “[p]rocedures for the isolation of
murine embryonic stem cell lines are now well established.” Specification, page
7. The specification also discloses, however, that isolation of embryonic stem
(ES)1 cells from ungulates such as cattle or pigs was not a routine matter of
1 In his declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132, inventor Martin J. Evans draws a distinction between
“embryonic stem cells” and “ES cells.” However, Dr. Evans cites no evidence to indicate that
those of skill in the art recognize a distinction between these terms and the instant specification
draws no distinction between these terms. We, therefore, treat the terms as synonymous.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007