Appeal No. 2007-0187 Page 3
Application No. 10/121,148
In addition, Appellants’ specification discloses that “[t]he cell surface of dendritic
cells . . . is characterized by expression of the cell surface markers CD11c and
MHC class II.” Specification, paragraph 27.
Appellants’ specification contrasts their use of the term “dendritic cell” with
the term “immature dendritic cells” which “express low levels of MHC class II, but
are capable of endocytosing antigenic proteins and processing them for
presentation in a complex with MHC class II molecules.” Specification,
paragraph 28. According to Appellants’ specification, “[t]he cell lines of the
present invention have several phenotypic characteristics of mature dendritic
cells including expression of CD11c, CD54, CD86, and MHC class II.”
Claim 15 places two requirements on the immortalized dendritic cells.
Specifically, they (1) express CD11c, and (2) are capable of presenting
exogenous antigen to stimulate naïve CD8+ and/or CD4+ T cells and/or B cells to
an antigen specific response.
Against this backdrop, we consider the rejections of record.
Lespagnard:
Claims 15-20 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Lespagnard. The Examiner relies on Lespagnard to teach an
immortalized dendritic cell (DC) which expresses, inter alia, CD11c and is
capable of presenting antigen to stimulate naive CD4+ T cells. Answer, page 3.
However, as Appellants point out (Brief, bridging sentence, pages 9-10),
the cells taught by Lespagnard “are not DCs, but are a fusion (hybridoma) of a
tumor cell and bone marrow cells.” We agree. According to Lespagnard
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013