Appeal No. 1997-2393
Application No. 08/183,381
Powell et al. (Powell), “Induction of effective immunity to moloney murine sarcoma
virus using monoclonal anti-idiotypic antibody as immunogen,” J. Immunology, Vol.
142, pp. 1318-1324 (1989)
Thanavala, “Anti-idiotype vaccines,” TibTech, Vol. 7, pp. 62-66 (1989)
Levy et al. (Levy), “Therapy of lymphoma directed at idiotypes,” Vol. 10, pp. 61-68
(1990)
Losman et al. (Losman), “Baboon anti-idiotype antibodies mimic a
carcinoembryonic antigen epitope,” Int. J. Cancer, Vol. 46, pp. 310-314 (1990)
Bhattacharya-Chatterjee et al. (Bhattacharya-Chatterjee), “Anti-idiotype monoclonal
antibodies as vaccines for human cancer,” Intern. Rev. Immunol., Vol. 7, pp. 289-
302 (1991)
GROUNDS OF REJECTION3
Claims 22 and 24-28 stand rejected4 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph,
as being based on an insufficient disclosure to support or enable the scope of the
claims currently claimed.
Claims 1, 5-8, 14-18, 22, 24-28, 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Hellstrom in view of the combined teachings of
Klein, Estabrook, Huberman and Haagensen.5
Claims 9-13 and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Thornton and Rubinstein in view of the combined teachings of
Klein, Estabrook, Huberman and Haagensen further in view of Herlyn.
3 We note the examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 5-21, 34 and 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See Answer, page 2.
4 We note the rejection of claims 22, and 24-28 is directly connected and relates to
the objection to the specification. In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403-1404, 169
USPQ 473, 479-480 (CCPA 1971).
5 We note the following typographical error. Canceled claim 23 was included in the
statement of the rejection. This typographical error was corrected herein above.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007