Appeal No. 1995-4400
Application 07/694,302
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
· Minson 5,045,447 Sept. 3, 1991
· Material Transfer Agreement to Steven Specter, Tampa, Florida, February 28, 1991,
for monoclonal antibody 720 [‘91 MTA]
· Material Transfer Agreement to Rex Risser, Madison, Wisconsin, February 20, 1990,
for hybridoma cell lines 48 and 720 ['90 MTA]
· Chesebro et al. [Chesebro], "Characterization of Mouse Monoclonal Antibodies
Specific for Friend Murine Leukemia Virus-Induced Erythroleukemia Cells: Friend-
Specific and FMR-Specific Antigens," Virology, Vol. 112, pp. 131-44 (1981)
· Earl et al. [Earl], "T-Lymphocyte Priming and Protection Against Friend Leukemia by
Vaccinia-Retrovirus env Gene Recombinant," Science, Vol. 234, pp. 728-31 (1986)
The rejections1 are:
1) Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) "based on public
knowledge or use of the invention in this country before the invention thereof by the
applicant for patent" as evidenced by the '91 MTA.
2) Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) "based on a public
use or sale of the invention" as evidenced by the '90 MTA.
3) Claims 8-10 and 12-14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the '90 MTA.2
1 These are the rejections set forth in the Examiner's Answer of May 20, 1994 (Paper No. 23). A number of
other rejections were made in the Final Rejection (Paper No. 14) but do not appear in the Examiner's
Answer. We presume those rejections were withdrawn. Also, while claims 1-20 were rejected in the Final
Rejection, claims 5, 6, 17, and 19 were excluded from the statements of the rejections in the Examiner's
Answer. This is consistent with appellants' Amendment, filed November 22, 1993, accompanying the Brief
(Paper Nno. 22), canceling claims 5, 6, 17, and 19. Although the amendment has not been formally
entered, the fact that these claims no longer appear in the statements of the rejections in the Examiner's
Answer indicates to us that the Examiner intended to enter the amendment. Accordingly, claims 5, 6, 17,
and 19 are not under appeal.
2 The statement of this rejection in the Examiner's Answer includes claim 17 (Paper No. 23, p. 5) rather
than claim 18. However, after reviewing the rejection set forth in the Final Rejection, the discussion in
appellants' Brief, and the status of the claims (see footnote 1 supra), it is clear that the rejection includes
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007