Ex Parte DIMARCHI et al - Page 11



              Appeal No. 2004-0250                                                              Page 11                
              Application No. 09/226,412                                                                               

              affirmance of the examiner’s rejection as a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR §                       
              1.196(b).6                                                                                               
                     The question now becomes one of priority of invention.  However, for the                          
              reasons set forth below, the claims pending in this application are unpatentable on                      
              grounds apart from those based upon Jensen.  Thus, declaration of an interference is                     
              premature.  However, if claims are determined to be patentable in subsequent                             
              proceedings but for Jensen, we make the following observations in regard to the three                    
              declarations filed under 37 CFR § 1.131.                                                                 
                     If the question of interference subsequently arises, based upon the respective                    
              filing dates, appellants must make a showing under 37 CFR § 1.608(b).  As set forth in                   
              the rule, that evidence shall include if possible, “one or more corroborating witnesses,                 
              supported by documentary evidence.”  The three Rule 131 declarations of record do not                    
              address the issue of corroboration.                                                                      
                     Furthermore, appellants assert in Declaration II that “conception of an invention                 
              encompassing the pulmonary delivery of LysB28ProB29-human insulin occurred prior to                      
              March 27, 1997 and was diligently reduced to practice on April 18, 1997.”  It would be                   

                     6  Appellants argued the claims on appeal as a group with the exception of                        
              claims 49, 53, and 62 directed to the use of AspB28-human insulin.  It is believed that                  
              appellants separately argued the merits of those three claims in light of Declaration III                
              directed to establishing AspB28 and Lyspro possess similar biochemical and                               
              biophysical properties.  Since Jensen describes the use of both AspB28-human insulin                     
              and Lyspro, we have addressed the merits of all claims subject to the examiner’s                         
              rejection that have been separately addressed in the briefing and see no reason to                       
              extend the analysis of the patentability issues in regard to Jensen further than                         
              appellants and the examiner have done, especially since we set forth detailed reasons                    
              why all of the pending claims are unpatentable in the other new grounds of rejection                     
              that follow.                                                                                             





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007