Interference No. 105,188
Short v. Punnonnen
2. Freeman PCT
First, we revisit the Freeman PCT. On consideration of
its complete disclosure, we fail to see how its recognition
that a “‘soluble B7-2 extracellular region fragment or derivative
5 that binds CTLA4Ig (or CTLA-4 or CD28 or CD28Ig)” need not
“necessarily [be] . . . capable of providing the second
co-stimulation signal required to induce T cells to proliferate
and become functional . . .’ (Paper 181, pg. 133, ll. 11-19)”
establishes that the Freeman PCT does not describe “‘obtaining an
10 optimized polynucleotide encoding a B7-1 or B7-2 co-stimulator
variant having an enhanced ability to modulate an immune response
induced by a genetic vaccine vector and having altered activity
through CD28 or CTLA-4 as compared to a predecessor B7-1 or B7-2
molecule, e.g. wild-type B7-1 or B7-2 . . .’ (Paper 181, pg. 129,
15 11.2-7, and pg. 142, 11. 2-9)”.
The Freeman PCT (Exh. 2040) explicitly states (Exh. 2040,
p. 2, ll. 20-33):
This invention pertains to isolated nucleic acids
20 encoding novel molecules which costimulate T cell
activation. Preferred costimulatory molecules include
antigens on the surface of B lymphocytes, professional
antigen presenting cells . . . which present antigen to
immune cells, and which bind either CTLA4, CD28, both CTLA4
25 and CD28 or other known or as yet undefined receptors on
immune cells. Such costimulatory molecules are referred
to herein as CTLA4/CD28 binding counter receptors or
B lymphocyte antigens, and are capable of providing
costimulation to activated T cells to thereby induce T cell
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007