Appeal No. 1997-2515
Application No. 08/221,767
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
A nucleic acid sequence comprising the HCR enhancer of SEQ ID NO:1 or a
biologically active fragment thereof; operably linked to a promoter and a
transgene, wherein the transgene comprises a nucleic acid encoding a
polypeptide involved in the immune response, hematopoiesis,
inflammation, cell growth and proliferation, cell lineage differentiation, or
the stress response, and wherein the promoter is selected from the
group of promoters consisting of: ApoA-I, ApoA-II, ApoA-III, ApoA-IV,
ApoB-48, ApoB-100, ApoC-I, ApoC-II, ApoC-III, ApoE, albumin, alpha
feto protein, PEPCK, transthyretin, SV40, CMV, and TK.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Matsushima et al. (Matsushima I), “Molecular Cloning of a Human Monocyte-derived
Neutrophil Chemotactic Factor (MDNCF) and the Induction of MDNCF mRNA by
Interleukin 1 and Tumor Necrosis Factor,” J. Exp. Med., Vol. 167,
pp. 1883-893 (1988)
Smith et al. (Smith), “Expression of the Human Apolipoprotein E Gene is Regulated
by Multiple Positive and Negative Elements,” J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 263, No. 17, pp.
8300-308 (1988)
Finch et al. (Finch), “Human KGF is FGF-related with Properties of a Paracrine
Effector of Epithelial Cell Growth,” Science, Vol. 245, pp. 752-55 (1989)
Mukaida et al. (Mukaida), “Genomic Structure of the Human Monocyte-derived
Neutrophil Chemotactic Factor IL-8,” J. Immunology, Vol. 143, pp. 1366-371 (1989)
Simonet et al. (Simonet), “Multiple Tissue-specific Elements Control the
Apolipoprotein E/C-I Gene Locus in Transgenic Mice,” J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 266, No.
14, pp. 8651-654 (1991)
GROUNDS OF REJECTION1
1We note the examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-18 and 21-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph; the rejection of claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph; the rejection of claims 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Audesirk et al.; the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-15, 21-24 and 26-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Chow et al., Mukaida
et al. and Gordon et al.; the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-14, 16, 21-23 and 25-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Chow et al.,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007