Appeal No. 2006-2466 Page 9
Application No. 09/835,759
immune response. There is no teaching or suggestion within Apostolopoulos that
humoral immunity could or should be suppressed. There is no motivation to attempt to
deplete B cells.” Amended Appeal Brief, page 12. With regard to Tachibana, Appellant
argues that “[d]isclosing that humoral immune responses inhibit cell mediated antitumor
activity is not the same as disclosing or suggesting depletion of B cells or depletion of B
cells with anti-CD22 antibody to eliminate a humoral immune response.” Appellant also
traverses the examiner’s position that Apostolopoulos provides “explicit” motivation to
combine, noting that Appellant was “unable to discover any mention in the cited
passage pertaining to B cell depletion, let alone the reportedly explicit suggestion.
Rather, to reach the conclusion urged by the Office requires a[n unsupported] leap that
correlates inducing a cellular immune response (i.e., TH1) with depleting B cells.” Reply
Brief, page 4.
We conclude that the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
As stated by Appellant, “Apostolopoulos discloses that administration of a tumor-
associated antigen conjugated to a carbohydrate polymer (mannan) produced a cell
mediated immune response that is effective against tumors, in contrast to previous
reports where administration of this tumor-associated antigen, conjugated to carriers,
produced a humoral immune response and ineffective antitumor activity.” Amended
Appeal Brief, page 9. As also stated by Appellant, “Tachibana discloses that induction
of a tumor-specific humoral immune response in tumor-bearing mice, by administration
of tumor-associated antigens in the context of tumor cell lines, caused enhancement of
tumor growth . . . , [but,] when induction of humoral immunity was inhibited, through the
use of the drug cyclophosphamide, that the enhanced tumor growth was not present.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007