Appeal No. 2004-1736 Page 6
Application No. 09/243,008
capable of signaling said cell to destroy a receptor-bound target cell
or receptor-bound target infective agent.
Thus, page 48 of the specification, coupled with the declaration of Dr.
Seed and original claim 44, supports the limitation of an intracellular domain that
does not signal target cell or target infective agent destruction.
The examiner asserts that page 48 of the specification is merely a single
species, contending that the one species does not support all chimeric receptors
wherein any intracellular domain may be used, so long as it does not transmit a
signal. See Examiner’s Answer, page 4. The examiner also contends that “[t]his
property of such an intracellular domain is contrary to most tenets of T cell
activation, since activation of T cells is accepted by those of skill in the art to
occur via the intracellular domain.” Id.
To give the examiner credit, we found this to be a close case. The
example on page 48, however, coupled with original claim 44, reasonably
conveys to one skilled in the art that appellants had possession of the claimed
invention at the time the application was filed. In addition, the examiner has
acknowledged that the chimera having the three amino acid anchor described at
page 48 of the specification is an example of a chimera having the claimed
limitations, thus the skilled artisan would appreciate that other intracellular
domains may be used in the chimera that would not signal target cell or target
infective agent destruction.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007