Appeal No. 2004-1930 Page 10
Application No. 08/940,544
actually shown to work. Thus, this patent does not provide either
an enabling disclosure or a written description of applicants;
invention, but merely a generalized statement submitted to justify a
generic claim.
Id. at 9.
Appellants’ arguments are not convincing for the reasons set forth above
to the response to argument with respect to the rejection over Eshhar. While
Roberts may not specifically exemplify scFv-containing fusions, it does exemplify
CD28 fusions. Moreover, the reference teaches that, in particular, the
extracellular domain may consist of monomeric or dimeric immunoglobulin (Ig)
molecules or portions or modifications thereof.
Finally, claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of either Eshhar or Roberts and Sambrook.
Because we have found that Eshhar and Roberts anticipate the invention of
claim 1, and as the claims stand or fall together, see Appeal Brief, page 3, we
affirm the obviousness rejections as well.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007