Appeal No. 2000-0461 Page 3
Application No. 08/460,569
MHC class I and class II antigens both participate in tissue rejection reactions
they interact with different cells of the immune system.” According to appellants
(id.), “MHC class II antigens participate in the presentation of antigens to helper
T cells. … Allogenic MHC class I antigens, on the other hand, are recognized
by cytotoxic T cells.”
The focal point of this appeal is the difference between the class I and
class II MHC antigens. Specifically, the examiner relies on Sharma (Answer,
page 3) for a disclosure of “compositions comprising (1) an MHC Class I
component and (2) an antibody carrier/effector component.” With reference to
Figure 1 and column 4, lines 31-56, the examiner finds (id.), Sharma disclose
“that the MHC component may be MHC Class I molecules.” From this the
examiner concludes (Answer, page 4), “the MHC I-antibody hybrid molecule
disclosed by the [sic] Sharma et al. []meet all the recited structural limitations of
the instant claims.”
As the briefings make clear, none of the other references relied upon by
the examiner teach MHC molecules. See e.g., (Brief, page 18), “Greenfield is
not cited for teaching or suggesting a construct comprising an MHC class I
antigen, which, indeed, it does not”; and Brief, page 23 “[t]he Office has admitted
that neither Liu nor Mezzanzanica teach a hybrid molecule wherein one
component is an MHC molecule.” Therefore, the critical issue presented for our
review is whether Sharma provides an enabling disclosure of an MHC class I
fusion protein. In this regard, we remind the examiner that in determining
whether the claimed invention is obvious, a prior art reference must be read as a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007