Ex Parte COULTER et al - Page 6



               Appeal No.  2002-2279                                                                         Page 6                   
               Application No. 08/556,667                                                                                             
                       If we understand the examiner’s position, it is that it would have been obvious for                            
               one skilled in the art to enrich a selected population of cells in a sample by capturing                               
               unwanted cells on particles coated with binding partners specific for the unwanted cells                               
               (as taught by Reynolds), allowing the particles to settle by gravity separation alone (as                              
               taught by Grenier, and also by Pry), and recovering cells of interest from the                                         
               supernatant, because Grenier teaches that gravity separation “is useful where                                          
               traditional purification or removal means are not appropriate, such as [ ] centrifugation                              
               or filtration” (Answer, page 4), and Reynolds teaches that the use of particles in a                                   
               negative cell selection process “provides a high level of recovery” and “does not                                      
               substantially physically damage the [cells of interest]” (Answer, pages 5-6).                                          
                       With respect to the requirement for “particles having a density of at least two                                
               times the density of the cells of interest” (claims 4 and 5, e.g.), the examiner appears to                            
               concede that none of the references teaches particles at least twice as dense as                                       
               Reynold’s bone marrow cells, but argues that the “claims simply recite that the particles                              
               are at least two times [as] dense[ as] a cell[ ] where no particular type of cell is recited   .                       
               . . [t]hus the particle can be twice as dense[ ] [as] some type of cells” (Answer, page 13).                           
               In any case, the examiner believes that “[t]he use of a known member of a class of                                     
               materials, such as the particular size of a particle, in a process is not patentable if other                          
               members of the class were known to be useful for that purpose   . . . [and n]o more than                               
               routine skill is involved in adjusting the density or size of component . . . to suit a                                
               particular starting material in order to achieve the results taught in the prior art” (id.,                            
               pages 4-5).                                                                                                            
                       Nevertheless, we agree with appellants that none of the references relied on by                                
               the examiner describes or suggests particles “having a density at least two times the                                  




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007