Appeal No. 2007-0187 Page 4
Application No. 10/121,148
(bridging paragraph, columns 1-2, page 250), “[t]he aim of our work was to confer
the potent immuno-stimulator properties of DC on P815 tumor cells, by
generating somatic hybrids between tumor cells and DC.” Therefore, the hybrid
cells taught by Lespagnard are no longer dendritic cells as defined by Appellants’
specification. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 15-20 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Lespagnard is reversed.
Lespagnard as evidenced by London:
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Lespagnard as evidenced by London. Claim 27 depends from and further limits
the dendritic cells of claim 15 to those that are “selected or transformed for one
or more of: growth factor independence; resistance to programmed cell death,
resistance to dedifferentiation, and resistance to cell senescence.”
According to the Examiner (Answer, page 4), Lespagnard
“teaches an immortalized, genetically modified, dendritic cell (DC) which
expresses CDllc . . . capable of presenting antigen to and antigen specifically
stimulating CD4+ T cells . . . transformed for growth factor independence.” The
Examiner relies on London to teach that P815 (one of the two parent cells of the
hybrid taught by Laspagnard) expresses the c-kit oncogene, which would confer
growth factor independence to the cells taught by Lespagnard.
However, as discussed above, Lespagnard teaches hybrid cells, not
dendritic cells as defined by Appellants’ specification. London fails to make up
for this deficiency in Lespagnard. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013