Appeal No. 2001-0562 Page 12
Application No. 08/460,478
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 81-100, 104-118, 122 and
123 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over ‘945 in view of Cohen-
Haguenauer, Braithwaite and Stratford-Perricaudet.
The rejection of claims 81, 90, 91, 104, 108 and 109:
The examiner relies (Answer, page 18) on the teachings of ‘945 in view of
Cohen-Haguenauer, Braithwaite and Stratford-Perricaudet as described above.
However, the examiner notes (id.) that no glial cell specific promoters were
taught in this combination of references. However, to make up for this deficiency
the examiner relies (id.) on Ikenaka to teach “a glial cell specific promoter of the
GFAP gene.”
In response appellants argue (Brief, page 22), Ikenaka does not cure the
deficiency in the combination of ‘979, ‘945, Cohen-Haguenauer, Braithwaite and
Stratford-Perricaudet. We agree.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 81, 90, 91, 104, 108 and
109 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over ‘945 in view of Cohen-
Haguenauer, Braithwaite and Stratford-Perricaudet and further in view of
Ikenaka.
The rejection of claims 81, 101, 102, 104, 119 and 120:
The examiner relies (Answer, page 18) on the teachings of ‘945 in view of
Cohen-Haguenauer, Braithwaite and Stratford-Perricaudet as described above.
However, the examiner notes (id.) that “[n]one of the references taught
heterologous genes known to encode lysosomal enzymes known to be deficient
or defective in neurological disorders.” To make up for this deficiency the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007