Ex Parte Fitzpatrick et al - Page 6


                 Appeal No.  2007-0187                                                        Page 6                  
                 Application No.  10/121,148                                                                          
                 Waldmann.  Specifically, the Examiner finds that Paglia teaches an immortalized                      
                 DC capable of inducing antigen-specific T cell responses in vivo.  Answer,                           
                 page 5.  Accordingly, the Examiner asserts (id.) “[i]t would have been prima facie                   
                 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to                    
                 immortalize, as taught by Paglia . . . the DC of [Waldmann] . . . .”  We disagree.                   
                 As discussed above, Waldmann clearly teaches away from immortalizing a DC                            
                 according to Paglia.  “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of                        
                 ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following                      
                 the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the                 
                 path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990, 78                             
                 USPQ2d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31                       
                 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).                                                                 
                        In contrast, instead of producing immortalized DC, Waldmann teaches the                       
                 use of genetically modified ES (embryonic stem) cells “to generate mutant DC on                      
                 demand.”  Waldmann, page 4.  Since Waldmann does not teach dendritic cells                           
                 as defined by Appellants’ specification3, and teaches away from producing an                         
                 immortalized DC according to Paglia, we find that the Examiner failed to meet his                    
                 burden of providing the evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case of                        
                 obviousness.  Accordingly we reverse the rejection of claims 15-28 under 35                          


                                                                                                                      
                 3 In addition, we note Paglia teaches that the CB1 cells described “may represent an intermediate    
                 stage of DC maturation.”  Paglia, page 1897, column 2.  More specifically, Paglia teaches that the   
                 CB1 cells may represent a DC precursor rather than a mature DC, requiring GM-CSF for                 
                 increased expression of MHC class II molecules in order to exhibit in vitro antigen-specific APC     
                 activity.  Paglia, page 1899, paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2, and second full paragraph of       
                 column 2.  Accordingly, it is our opinion that Paglia does not teach dendritic cells as defined by   
                 Appellants’ specification.                                                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013