Ex Parte SHAWVER et al - Page 10



             Appeal No. 2004-0005                                                        Page 10               
             Application No. 07/644,361                                                                        

             Lippman, col. 9, lines 11-27.  Lippman summarizes their work as follows:                          
                   In brief, we have identified a novel polypeptide of 75 kDa that binds to                    
                   the p185erbB-2 receptor.  The effects of p75 on cells with very high levels of              
                   erbB-2 were similar to the reported effects of the other ligand, gp30.  In                  
                   contrast to gp30, p75 appears to be specific for p185erbB-2 receptor.                       
                   Furthermore, we have provided evidence that cells that overexpress the                      
                   erbB-2 receptor may also secrete one of its ligands, which is required for                  
                   their proliferation, therefore implying an autocrine loop.  we believe that                 
                   manipulation of this and other erbB-2 ligands may turn out to have an                       
                   important biological effect on growth of human neoplasia.                                   
             Id., col. 56, lines 26-36.                                                                        
                   Apart from whether the disclosure of Lippman is prior art to the claims on appeal,          
             this disclosure should be taken into account in the event of further prosecution of this          
             subject matter since it raises questions as to the results reported in appellants’ Example        
             8D relied upon in support of their assertion that TAb 250 induces phosphorylation of              
             c-erbB-2 protein.  If the autocrine loop described by Lippman exists in the cells used in         
             appellants’ Example 8D, it does not appear that one can reasonably ascribe the                    
             induction of phosphorylation to TAb 250 as opposed to the ligands described in                    
             Lippman.                                                                                          
                   Another document that appellants and the examiner should consider in the event              
             of further prosecution is Erickson.  Erickson states that ErbB2, ErbB3 and ErbB4 have             
             nearly identical molecular sizes and it is not possible to discern which protein is               
             becoming tyrosine phosphorylated when whole-cell lysates are evaluated by Western                 
             blot analysis.  Id., col. 28, lines 55-64.  It appears that appellants’ Example 8D used           
             whole-cell lysates.  Thus, if the cells used in Example 8D also express ErbB3 and                 
             ErbB4, it may not be reasonable for appellants to conclude that the work described in             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007