mammalian cells (‘567 at 10:39-53). Glaxo has not explained why these expressions vectors
would not allow for “proper glycosylation” of the antibodies expressed.
As noted above, Dr. Youle testified that in CHO cells expressing antibodies, it would
have been possible to take steps to either inhibit glycosylation or to remove the sugar groups
after glycosylation (FF 51) .
Glaxo has not directed us to any portion of the Cabilly applications that directs one to
take the steps referred to in Dr. Youle’s testimony to inhibit glycosylation. We note that in the
section of the Cabilly applications entitled “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION”, it is
stated that antibodies in glycosylated form may “under some circumstances” be undesirable
(FF 47) and that “[t]he antibodies of the present invention do not suffer from the foregoing
drawbacks.” While the Cabilly applications describe antibodies that are not glycosylated (e.g.,
those produced in E. coli), we do not read this section of the Cabilly applications as limiting the
antibodies of the invention to those that are not glycosylated. In particular, the section notes that
glycosylated antibodies are undesirable only “under some circumstances.” Since the Cabilly
applications include antibodies that are not glycosylated, one could select a non glycosylated
antibody when a glycosylated antibody is undesirable and thus avoid the “drawback” of
“inevitable” glycosylation.
Dr. Vitetta’s testimony:
Glaxo does not appear to rely upon Dr. Vitetta’s testimony to support its arguments
regarding glycosylation. Dr. Vitetta’s testimony is consistent with Dr. Youle’s to the extent that
Dr. Vitetta’s testimony indicates that the one would not select CHO cells for antibody expression
-39-
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007