Appeal No. 2002-1299 Page 4
Application No. 08/962,740
Leder, and Todaro, as suggested by the Examiner.” In this regard, appellants
argue (id.), “[t]he mere existence of Stat1-deficient mice cannot be a suggestion
to make immortalized Stat1-deficient cell lines. The Examiner must show that
the references render the claimed invention prima facie obvious, not simply a
general method of making immortalized cells.”
In response, the Examiner finds (Answer, page 5), the combination of
references relied upon “provide motivation to make immortalized cell lines from
the Durbin mouse as an easier vehicle to study the interactions of cytokines and
Stat1 proteins. Immortalized cell lines can be readily multiplied and grown to run
a plethora of assays much more quickly than the mouse itself.” In this regard,
we note “[t]he test for obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed
invention in any or all of the references but rather what the references taken
collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be
familiar with them.” In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 851, 146 USPQ 183, 186
(CCPA 1965).
As we understand the references, Durbin teach (page 443, column 2), “a
wide range of cytokines, growth factors, and other signaling molecules, acting
through a variety of receptor systems, have been shown to activate STAT1 in
cell culture systems.” As appellants point out (Brief, page 3), with regard to “a
previously described Stat1 deficient cell line, Durbin states that, ‘the lack of
responsiveness of the parental cell line to other cytokines, and the
uncharacterized nature of the Stat1 defect have made generalizations
concerning Stat1 function difficult to draw.’” Therefore, “[t]o investigate further
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007