It was interesting the first time it was posted to this thread, but it's a bit boring now.
If you don't know where I got the application abstract from, you are not particularly qualified to comment on what can be patented and what can't.
Do you lump "bone marrow transplant" into a single procedure?
Sykes, et al. can't patent bone marrow transplants, they are known.
Yup, guess so.
BWDIK?
Very, very little, so why do you feel compelled to comment?
Going to walk up to Dr. Sykes tomorrow and tell her she's not doing anything unique, and you know damn well that she isn't 'cause you read the WSJ every day?
This report describes an individual who is walking around with a foreign kidney and who is not taking immunosuppressive drugs. But CobaltBlue, king of the keyboard, says there's nothing new. Heck, and some of us thought it was a medical advance of some relevance.
The antibody proposed for use in the AlloMune procedure is proprietary, as is the device used for fractionation of the marrow (Dendreon). The patent covering the antibody covers any antibody that reacts with the same CD2 epitope. Whether or not the procedure itself can be patented remains to be seen, but your description of prior art is very far from relevant. |
