Appeal No. 1997-2374
Application No. 08/064,352
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
· "Research Agreement for Material Provided by the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, NIH," to Dr. Townsend [UR1];
· "Research Agreement for Material Provided by the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, NIH," to Dr. Hoffman [VR1];
· "Research Agreement for Material Provided by the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, NIH," to Dr. Hayes [UR2];
· Sevier et al. (Sevier), "Monoclonal Antibodies in Clinical Immunology," Clinical
Chemistry 27(11), 1981, pp. 1797-1806;
· Britt et al. (Britt), "Use of Monoclonal Anti-gp70 Antibodies to Mimic the Effects of
the Rfv-3 Gene in Mice with Friend Virus-Induced Leukemia," Journal of
Immunology, vol. 130, no. 5 (May 1983, pp. 2363-2367; and,
· Harlow et al. (Harlow), "Antibodies A Laboratory Manual”, Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory, Cold Spring, 1988, pp. 148-152 and 567-569.
The claims stand rejected as follows2:
1) "Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over any one of
the references of record cited as UR1, VR1, and UR2 in view of Harlow et al." (see
p. 2 of the Supplemental Examiner's Answer, paper no. 45);
2) "Claim 73 [is] rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by any of the material
transfer agreements referred to as UR1, VR1, and UR2" (see p. 4 of the Examiner's
Answer, paper no. 42);
3) "Claims 3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sevier et al. in view of any of the references cited as UR1, VR1, and UR2" (see
p. 6 of the Examiner's Answer, paper no. 42); and,
· Second Supplemental Examiner's Answer (paper no. 47).
2 We reproduce the statements of the rejections as they appear in the Examiner's Answer of May 20,
1994 (paper no. 23) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer of December 1, 1995 (paper no. 45). The
statements in the Final Rejection (paper no. 28) included additional references which are no longer relied
upon.
3 In the Examiner's Answer, claim 1 was also rejected over UR1, VR1 and UR2. However, the rejection of
claim 1 was withdrawn in the subsequent Supplemental Examiner's Answer (paper no. 45, p. 2) in favor of
a new ground of rejection rejecting claim 1 over any of UR1, VR1 and UR2 in view of Harlow.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007