Appeal No. 1996-2756
Application No. 07/987,235
“that anti-sense RNA complementary to introns and splice junctions would contribute
to antimessage [sic] inhibition.” However, these arguments fail to address
appellants’ argument concerning selective inhibition, specifically the ability to inhibit
expression of a specific gene among a family of genes, without affecting the
expression of the other gene family members.
With regard to Izant, appellants argue (Brief, bridging paragraph, pages 10-
11) that “the sum total of Izant & Weintraub’s contribution to this topic is the
comment that ‘indeed, anti-sense RNA complementary to introns, splice junctions,
and untranslated mRNA domains may augment our understanding of mRNA
processing as well as contribute to anti-message inhibition.’” We remind the
examiner that “it is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and
choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position to
the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference
fairly suggests to one skilled in the art.” In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241, 147
USPQ 391, 393 (CCPA 1965); see also In re Mercer, 515 F.2d 1161, 1165-66,
185 USPQ 774, 778 (CCPA 1975).
The full paragraph from Izant that contains the sentence relied upon by the
examiner reads as follows:
The value of anti-sense transcription as a tool for genetic
analysis will become clearer as additional genes and other recipient
cell types are examined. While HSV-TK is an informative model
system, it is not necessarily the ideal paradigm for most eucaryotic
genes particularly because it lacks introns. Indeed, anti-sense RNA
complementary to introns, splice junctions, and untranslated mRNA
domains may augment our understanding of mRNA processing as
well as contribute to anti-message inhibition [citation omitted].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007