Appeal No. 1999-0326
Application No. 07/997,715
Claim 28 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows:
28. A method for inducing an anti-tumor immune response against a tumor cell in a
patient comprising:
administering to said patient having said tumor cell a heterologous tumor cell of the
same tumor type wherein one said heterologous tumor cell has a reduced intracellular level
of IGF-I relative to the level of IGF-I normally expressed in said heterologous tumor cell, and
wherein said reduction in the intracellular level of IGF-I results in said heterologous
tumor cell inducing an anti-tumor immune response when administered to said patient.
The Rejection
Claims 28 through 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as
based on a non-enabling disclosure. In support of the rejection, the examiner relies on
Uhlmann and Peyman, “Antisense Oligonucleotides: A New Therapeutic Principle,”
Chemical Reviews, Vol. 90, No. 4, pp. 544-579 (June 1990). See the Second
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (paper no. 28).
Deliberations
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the following
materials: (1) the instant specification; appellants’ Brief on Appeal (paper no. 20); the
Examiner’s Answer (paper no. 21); appellants’ Reply Brief (paper no. 23); the amendment
entitled “Second Supplemental Amendment,” filed August 14, 1996 (paper no. 25); the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (paper no. 26); appellants’ Reply to Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer (paper no. 27); the Second Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (paper
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007