Ex parte EVANS et al. - Page 7


                 Appeal No. 1995-1977                                                                                   
                 Application 07/669,403                                                                                 



                 cells via Appellants’ method and not the result of being ungulate embryonic stem                       
                 cells per se.  The record evidence does not support Appellants’ conclusion that                        
                 any cell not sharing the four recited characteristics is not an ungulate embryonic                     
                 stem cell.                                                                                             
                        In addition, even if Applicants’ properties were accepted as being                              
                 definitive of ungulate embryonic stem cells, at least one cell line disclosed in the                   
                 prior art appears to fit the bill.  Piedrahita discloses an ungulate embryonic cell                    
                 line P3.  This cell line is disclosed to “survive[] to the tenth and subsequent                        
                 passages,” satisfying Appellants’ third criterion.  The cell line also gives rise to                   
                 “round cells with large nuclei and prominent nucleoli[,] . . . resembling mouse                        
                 teratocarcinoma stem cell colonies.”  All of these features are shared by                              
                 Appellants’ stem cells, and therefore the P3 cell line appears to satisfy                              
                 Appellants’ first criterion of differing from the morphology of murine embryonic                       
                 stem cells.  Although Piedrahita does not disclose whether the P3 cell line was                        
                 fast-growing or slow-growing, nor what types of cells the P3 cell line gave rise to,                   
                 all of the disclosed properties of the P3 cell line are consistent with the P3 cells                   
                 being ungulate embryonic stem cells, according to Appellants’ own definition.                          
                        Appellants also argue that later publications by Piedrahita—his Ph.D.                           
                 thesis and a published research article—show that Piedrahita himself concluded                         
                 that the cells isolated in the relied-upon reference were not truly embryonic stem                     
                 cells.  Specifically, Appellants argue that Piedrahita noted in his thesis that “the                   
                 term embryonic stem-like (ES-like) is used to distinguish embryo-derived cells                         
                 based on morphology; it is not used to imply that the cell line has pluripotential                     
                 capabilities.”3  Appeal Brief, page 10.                                                                
                                                                                                                        
                 3 Appellants rely on the Piedrahita thesis and the examiner states that the “Piedrahita Dissertation   
                 . . . was carefully considered.”  Examiner’s Answer, page 8.  However, the Piedrahita thesis was       

                                                           7                                                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007