Appeal 2007-2542
Application 10/623,891
JM/102W with reticuloendotheliosis virus (REV) in a duck embryo
fibroblast line (Witter ’97, at 408, cols. 1-2; Answer 4).
2. RM1 contains a single REV long terminal repeat (LTR) inserted
upstream of the MDV IPC4 gene (Jones, at 2466; Answer 10, 15; Appeal Br.
7-8).
3. Witter ’97 reports that RM1 was effective to elicit a protective
immune response to MDV in chickens, exceeding the response to
commercial vaccine strains (Witter ’97, at 415-416, 419; Answer 4-5).
4. RM1 also replicated efficiently in vivo (Witter ’97, at 416, col. 2)
in contrast to the parental strain JM/102W (Witter ’97, at 416, col. 1)
(Answer 5).
5. RM1 was almost fully attenuated for oncogenicity, “but retained
other in vivo properties of virulent viruses such as thymic and bursal
atrophy” (Witter ’97, at 407 (“Summary”); Answer 5). Thus, Witter ’97
concludes that “the RM1 clones would not seem to be likely candidates for
commercial vaccine development, primarily because of residual
oncogenicity and the ability to cause persistent thymic atrophy” (Witter ’97,
at 419-420).
6. However, Witter ’97 states that RM1 clones “do represent a model
for future vaccines” (Witter ’97, at 420; Answer 5).
7. Witter ’95 reported that MDV vaccine strain CVI988/Rispens does
not cause thymic atrophy (Witter ’95, at 277 and 274 (Table 5); Answer 5).
8. CVI988/Rispens is described by Witter ’95 as generally providing
the “best protection” against MDV (Witter ’95, at 269 (“Summary”);
Answer 5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013