The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte NORIMITSU SAITO and MING ZHAO
__________
Appeal No. 2005-1442
Application No. 09/734,786
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before ELLIS, SCHEINER, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a method of introducing a nucleic acid into a
subject by modifying and transplanting hair follicles. The examiner has rejected the
claims as nonenabled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. Because the
examiner has not shown that undue experimentation would have been required to
practice the claimed method, we reverse.
Background
The specification discloses that “histocultured tissues, including tissues
containing hair follicles, can be successfully modified genetically ex vivo and then
transplanted successfully into an intact mammalian subject. The success of the
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007