Appeal No. 1995-1977
Application 07/669,403
applying the methods developed for murine cells to cells from other animals.
See the specification, page 5: “it is unlikely that the methods as described for
mouse and utilised for hamster will be directly applicable to other embryos.” The
prior art of record also notes that the mouse methods were not directly applicable
to ungulate cells. See Ware: “[C]onditions described for ES isolation in mice
have not been amenable among farm animals for the long -term rapid cell
proliferation that is characteristic of ES cells.”
Appellants’ specification discloses a method of isolating embryonic stem
cells from ungulate species. The application provides examples showing
isolation of ES cells from cattle and pigs. Appellants claim isolated ungulate
embryonic stem cells and the disclosed method of isolating such cells.
DISCUSSION
1. The rejection under § 102(b)
The examiner rejected claims 1-4 and 14, which are drawn to isolated
embryonic stem cells, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by either of
Piedrahita or Ware.2 Since we agree with the examiner that the claims are
anticipated by Piedrahita, we will not further discuss Ware.
Piedrahita teaches isolation of porcine embryonic stem cells. Piedrahita
states that one of the resulting cell lines (designated P3) was characterized by
round cells having large nuclei and prominent nucleoli. As the examiner notes,
these properties are also characteristic of the ungulate embryonic stem cells
disclosed in the instant specification. See the specification at page 18: “stem
2 Because we find that Piedrahita anticipates claims 1-4 and 14, we will not address the
alternative rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007