F 79. Stice 577 notes that it is the use of differentiated donor cells which distinguishes the Stice
577 invention from the prior art:
Prior art methods have used embryonic cell types in cloning
procedures. This includes work by Campbell et al (Nature, 380:64-68,1996)
and Stice et a] (Biol. Reprod., 54:100-110, 1996). In both of those studies,
embryonic cell lines were derived from embryos of less than 10 days of
gestation. In both studies, the cells were maintained on a feeder layer to
prevent overt differentiation of the donor cell to be used in the cloning
procedure. The present invention uses differentiated cells.
It was unexpected that cloned embryos with differentiated donor
nuclei could develop to advanced embryonic and fetal stages. The scientific
doy-ma has been that only embryonic or undifferentiated cell Wes could
direct this Me of development. It was unexpected that a large number of
cloned embryos could be produced from these differentiated cell Wes. Also,
the fact that new transgenic embryonic cell lines could be readily derived
from transgenic cloned embryos was unexpected.
Stice 577, col. 6,11. 12-30 (emphasis added).
F 80. Stice 577 emphasizes that in the Stice cloning process differentiated cells are inserted into
the oocyte:
It is a more specific object of the invention to provide a novel method for
cloning mammalian cells which involves transplantation of the nucleus of a
differentiated mammalian cell into an enucleated oocyte of the same species.
Strelchenko Ex. 2001, col. 3,1. 66 - col. 4,1. 2.
F 81. As used in the Stice 577 specification, "somatic cells" are differentiated cells.
F 82. The Stice 577 patent does not describe reprogramming donor cells to make them totipotent
before insertion into the enucleated oocyte.
F 83. Stice 577 describes a method in which differentiated cells are used as the donor material
without reprogramming.
ANALYSIS
The University of Massachusetts has filed a motion forjudgment under 37 CFR § 1.633(a)
asserting that Strelchenko's involved claims are barred by 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1). Strelchenko
opposes. In opposing the motion, Strelchenko has not argued that Strelchenko's involved claims are
not directed to the same or substantially the same subj ect matter as the claims of the Stice 5 77 patent.
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007