Appeal No. 1996-2756
Application No. 07/987,235
Brief3, and appellants’ Reply Brief4 for the appellants’ arguments in favor of
patentability.
Background:
According to the appellants’ specification (page 6) the claimed invention
provides “a novel approach to the design of antisense RNA molecules, and their
coding sequences, in a manner which allows their use to inhibit the expression of
specific genes.” Appellants’ specification (bridging paragraph, pages 6-7)
proposes that the claimed invention “will allow that [sic] the development of
antisense technology having a much improved ability to inhibit specific gene
expression, particularly in those instances where one desires to selectively inhibit a
particular gene over that of closely related genes or other members of a gene
family.” Appellants’ specification (page 7) discloses that:
[a] principle [sic] feature of the present invention is the
antisense RNA molecules themselves, which include a region that is
complementary to and is capable of hybridizing with an intron region
of the gene whose expression is to be inhibited. The inclusion of
intron-complementary regions in the antisense RNA constructs of the
present invention is believed to be the key to both an improved
inhibitory capability as well as selectivity.
…
Thus, where intron regions between two genes are distinct, antisense
introns can be designed which will hybridize selectively to a selected
gene family member, and not to other family members, and thereby
inhibit selectivity.
At page 9, the specification further discloses that “[t]he most preferred
oncogenes for application of the present invention will be those which exist as a
family of genes, where one desires to selectively inhibit one member of a family
3 Paper No. 25, received February 27, 1995.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007