Appeal No. 2004-1930 Page 8
Application No. 08/940,544
same time, entirely inadequate to support the allowance of such a
claim.
Id. 410 F.2d at 1405, 161 USPQ at 785 (footnotes omitted); In re Schoenwald,
964 F.2d at 1123, 22 USPQ2d at 1673 (quoting the above passage from Hafner).
Similarly, we do not see any requirement in section 102(b) that the disclosure
provide a written description of the claimed subject matter as required by the
Federal Circuit in cases such as University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119
F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (1997).
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Roberts. Again, as claims 1 and 2 stand and fall together with
respect to this rejection as well, see Appeal Brief, page 3, we focus our analysis
on claim 1.
According to the rejection, “Roberts teach polynucleotides that encode
human CD28 cytoplasmic and transmembrane domains fused to a single-chain
antibody (see column 6, lines 55-67).” Examiner’s Answer, page 5.
Again we find that Roberts discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Roberts teaches co-stimulatory chimeric DNA sequences, wherein the novel co-
stimulatory chimeric DNA sequences
comprise three domains that do no naturally exist together: (1) at
least one cytoplasmic domain, which normally transduces a co-
stimulatory signal resulting in activation of a messenger system, (2)
at least one transmembrane domain, which crosses the outer
cellular membrane, and (3) at least one extracellular receptor
domain which serves to bind to a ligand, and transmit a signal to
the cytoplasmic domain, resulting in a co-stimulatory signal in the
host cell in which the chimeric DNA is expressed. Particularly,
cytoplasmic DNA sequences of co-stimulatory molecules such as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007