Ex parte EVANS et al. - Page 9


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



                  Dr. Evans provides a brief tutorial in mammalian development, a “glossary” of                              
                  relevant terms, and a table setting out Dr. Evans’ interpretation of the published                         
                  work of others in the field.   In particular, Dr. Evans interprets the results                             
                  disclosed by Piedrahita and concludes that Piedrahita did not isolate embryonic                            
                  stem cells because “the cells obtained [by Piedrahita] were later shown not to                             
                  have the capacity of differentiation,”  citing Piedrahita’s Ph.D. thesis as support.                       
                         The Evans declaration does not show that the prior art products differed                            
                  from those of the instant claims.  The declaration adds no evidence to what is                             
                  disclosed in the references in the record.  It merely presents Dr. Evans’                                  
                  interpretation of the other references.  Dr. Evans’ interpretation of Piedrahita’s                         
                  data is based solely on an experimental result allegedly presented in Piedrahita’s                         
                  thesis.  However, Dr. Evans does not explain how the data in the Piedrahita                                
                  thesis led him to conclude that the cells disclosed therein, and allegedly shown to                        
                  lack the capability to differentiate, are identical to the P3 cell line discussed in the                   
                  relied-on Piedrahita reference.  Therefore, as evidence to show that the P3 cell                           
                  line disclosed by Piedrahita does not meet the limitations of the instant claims,                          
                  the Evans declaration carries little, if any, weight.                                                      
                         In conclusion, the evidence of record shows that the cells disclosed by                             
                  Piedrahita share several characteristics with the ungulate embryonic stem cells                            
                  described and claimed in the i nstant application.  Among other things, both the                           
                  prior art cells and the specification’s are round cells with large nuclei and                              
                  prominent nucleoli, which resemble teratocarcinomas.  All of these properties                              
                  indicate that the P3 cells disclosed by Piedrahita were ungulate embryonic stem                            
                  cells, even by Appellants’ definition.  The evidence of record therefore supports                          
                  the examiner’s finding that the cells disclosed by Piedrahita anticipate the                               


                                                             9                                                               



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007