Ex Parte ROLLINS et al - Page 17


                   Appeal No. 2001-0869                                                                 Page 17                       
                   Application No. 08/453,347                                                                                         

                           Thus, claims 1-3 and 7-16 are directed to subject matter that is not                                       
                   patentably distinguished from the claims corresponding to the count of the ‘998                                    
                   interference, which Appellants lost.  The decision in the interference therefore                                   
                   precludes Appellants from allowance of these claims.                                                               
                           In an earlier communication from this board, Appellants were advised of                                    
                   the potential interference estoppel issue and were ordered to explain why an                                       
                   estoppel does not exist under Rule 658(c) and why the claims are not                                               
                   unpatentable under the principles of In re Deckler.  See Paper No. 34, mailed                                      
                   Oct. 29, 2002.                                                                                                     
                           Appellants responded that the claims involved in the ‘998 interference                                     
                           are all directed to methods involving administration of JE/MCP-1                                           
                           protein or cells expressing JE/MCP-1 protein.  Thus, the subject                                           
                           matter of the interference is derived from the discovery of the                                            
                           purified protein, its source and its administration.  In contrast,                                         
                           claims 1, 3-5 and 7-13 of the present application are all directed to                                      
                           methods involving administration of cells which are genetically                                            
                           engineered to express JE/MCP-1 protein.  This discovery is derived                                         
                           from, and enabled by, the isolation of the gene, or DNA, that                                              
                           expresses the protein.  This is more closely related to the subject                                        
                           matter of Interference 103,884, to which Appellants were awarded                                           
                           priority.  Briefly, Yoshimura et al. were awarded priority to the                                          
                           protein and methods of using the protein (either in pure form or as                                        
                           secreted by a native cell).  Rollins et al. (Appellants) were awarded                                      
                           priority to the DNA.  Since the manufacture of genetically                                                 
                           engineered cells for use in treating patients requires the invention                                       
                           of the DNA, not the protein, these claims are not properly rejected                                        
                           under the doctrine of preclusion or precluded pursuant to 37 CFR                                           
                           § 1.658(c).                                                                                                
                   Paper No. 38, filed Dec. 30, 2002.                                                                                 
                           This argument is not persuasive.  The claims involved in the ‘998                                          
                   interference were not limited to treatment methods comprising administering the                                    






Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007