Ex Parte Barbera-Guillem - Page 7


            Appeal No. 2006-2466                                                         Page 7              
            Application No. 09/835,759                                                                       

            challenged with MUC1+3T3 cells, had poor tumor protection; significant antibody titers           
            were produced, a detectable CD4+ DTH [delayed-type hypersensitivity], but no CTL                 
            [cytotoxic T cells] were found.’ (see page 930, right column).”  Examiner’s Answer, page         
            11.  In addition, Tachibana teaches that the “combined treatment with                            
            cyclophosphamide (an immunosuppressant to depress humoral response and/or                        
            regulatory cells; see page 456) plus hybrid cells showed no antibody elevation and               
            immune complex production, but generation of potent cytotoxic T cells was comparable             
            to that of immunized hosts and was followed by curative antitumor effect (see page               
            461).”  Id., page 12.  Furthermore, Parkhouse teaches “that normal B cells bear surface          
            CD22 and an anti-CD22 antibody-ricin conjugate effectively depletes normal B cells               
            (see Figure 3).”  Id.                                                                            
                   The examiner argues that, in view of the applied references, “one of ordinary skill       
            in the art would have been motivated and had a reasonable expectation of success at              
            the time the invention was made to . . . produce a composition . . . comprising a tumor-         
            associated antigen (i.e., MUC1) and the anti-CD22 antibody-ricin conjugate of                    
            Parkhouse et al[.] for depleting B cells.”  Id., page 16.  In particular, the examiner argues    
            that:                                                                                            
                         The motivation to make the above modifications is made explicit in                  
                   the teachings of Apostolopoulos et al[.] who teach that induction of a                    
                   humoral immune response (i.e., TH2 or antibody response) gives poor                       
                   tumor protection accompanied by little cellular immunity and [that]                       
                   induction of a cellular immune response (i.e., TH1 response) results in                   
                   significant tumor protection, cytotoxic T lymphocytes and little antibody                 
                   production (i.e., TH2 or humoral immune response) (see abstract).                         
                   Additional motivation for the above modifications and in agreement with                   
                   Apostolopoulos et al[.], Tachibana et al[.] state “[that] enhancement of                  
                   tumor growth was caused by acceleration of humoral response existing                      
                   beforehand in the tumor-bearing state” (see pg. 461).  Therefore, one of                  





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007