Ex Parte Barbera-Guillem - Page 8


            Appeal No. 2006-2466                                                         Page 8              
            Application No. 09/835,759                                                                       

                   ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have                   
                   been motivated to shift the anti-tumor immune response from a                             
                   humoral/antibody/TH2 immune response existing in the tumor-bearing                        
                   state to a cellular/TH1 immune response using a composition comprising                    
                   a B cell depleting agent as taught by Parkhouse et al[.] (i.e., anti-CD22                 
                   antibody-ricin conjugate) and a tumor-associated antigen (i.e., MUC1)                     
                   capable of inducing a TH1 response for tumor therapy.                                     
            Id., page 17.                                                                                    
                   Appellant argues that none of Apostolopoulos, Tachibana, Trinchieri, or Wang              
            “teach or suggest specifically depleting B cells and certainly do not teach or suggest           
            depleting B cells with an anti-CD22 antibody” and that “[t]here is simply no motivation          
            within Parkhouse, or in the other references, to make the combination proposed by the            
            Patent Office.”  Amended Appeal Brief, page 11.  In support of this position, Appellant          
            notes that the “claims recite an anti-CD22 antibody to effect B cell depletion, while            
            Parkhouse discloses an anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to the cellular toxin, ricin.               
            Given the anti-CD22 antibody-ricin conjugate of Parkhouse, at best, it might have been           
            obvious to try anti-CD22 antibody alone to see if B cells could be depleted.”  Id.               
                   Appellant also argues that “there would have to be a reasonable expectation that          
            modifying the anti-CD22-ricin conjugate to anti-CD22 without the conjugated ricin would          
            be able to effect B cell depletion.”  Id.  However, as noted by the examiner, the claims         
            encompass an immunotherapeutic composition that comprises an anti-CD22 mAb and a                 
            component, such as ricin A chain, that is coupled to the anti-CD22 mAb.  Thus,                   
            Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.                                                        
                   In addition, Appellant argues that “Apostolopoulos merely discloses that                  
            conjugation of tumor-specific antigens with certain carriers may facilitate a tumor-             
            specific antigen in producing a cell mediated immune response rather than a humoral              






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007