Appeal No. 1995-2297
Application No. 07/797,493
certainly motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare additional human-mouse
chimera using similar or modified procedures.”
In this instance, McCune teach away from its combination with references teaching
radiation chimeras. In addition, the examiner fails to provide a reason, suggestion, or
motivation as to why one would combine the references, in lieu of the express teaching
away, in a manner that would give rise to appellants’ claimed invention. Pro-Mold and Tool
Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573,
37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Accordingly we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 13 and 14.
II. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Reisner, Lubin or Kamel.
The position taken by the examiner and the issues raised are similar in regard to
the application of Reisner, Lubin or Kamel. Therefore, we address them together below.
A. Claims 9, 11 and 12 drawn to a process for engrafting human hematopoietic
cells in an immunodeficient mouse.
The examiner recognizes the difference between Reisner and Lubin and the
claimed invention at page 4 of the Answer, “[e]ach of these teachings differs from the
claimed invention in that . . . human growth factors are not administered to the mouse
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007