Appeal No. 95-1463
Application No. 07/779,704
Appellants failed to respond to the new ground of rejection
and, accordingly, the appeal with respect to claims 5 through
8, 39, and 44 through 49 is also dismissed.2
Claims 9 and 10 read as follows:
9. Recombinant fusion protein p776.
10. Recombinant fusion protein p410.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
J. Sambrook et al. (Sambrook), Molecular Cloning: A
Laboratory Manual, pp. 17.2-17.9 (2d ed., Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory Press 1989)
Gabriele S. Gassmann et al. (Gassmann), "Analysis of the
Borrelia burgdorferi GeHo fla Gene and Antigenic
Characterization of Its Gene Product," 173 Journal of
Bacteriology no. 4, 1452-59 (Feb. 1991)
The issue presented for review is whether the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Gassmann and
Sambrook.
DISCUSSION
2On July 21, 1998, Pamela S. Bennett, paralegal with the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, spoke on the
telephone with Cheryl L. Becker, Registration No. 35,441,
counsel for appellants. In that telephone conversation,
counsel indicated that no Reply Brief was filed in response to
the new ground of rejection and that claims 9 and 10 are the
only claims remaining on appeal.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007