Appeal No. 1996-1093
Application No. 07/300,357
As discussed above the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed
promoter/operator region. Without this region, the claimed plasmids and expression vectors can not be
obtained.
Therefore, we find the examiner has not met his burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. Having concluded that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness, we do not reach the rebuttal evidence discussed in appellants’ Brief (pages 12-14) and
Reply Brief (pages 4-6).
OTHER ISSUES
The Communication from the Office mailed March 8, 1993 (Paper No. 21), in response to
appellants’ petition, filed October 2, 1992 (Paper No. 20), states that the Amendments of April 10
(Paper No. 8), July 6 (Paper No. 13) and August 3, 1992 (Paper No. 16) were entered. Upon review
of the application, it does not appear that these Papers were entered as stated in the
March 8, 1993 (Paper No. 21) Communication. The examiner should determine the status of these
amendments, and take the appropriate action.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007