Ex Parte Crea - Page 5

                Appeal  2007-2400                                                                            
                Application  10/418,182                                                                      

                2.  REFERENCES                                                                               
                      The Examiner relies on the following references:                                       
                      Crea  US 5,830,650  Nov. 3, 1998                                                       
                      Crea  US S.N. 10/371,404 Feb. 20, 2003                                                 
                      Crea  US 6,649,340 B1  Nov. 18, 2003                                                   
                      Victoria A. Roberts et al., “Antibody Remodeling:  A General                           
                Solution to the Design of a Metal-Coordination Site in an Antibody Binding                   
                Pocket”, 87(17) Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. USA 6654-6658 (1990).                                 
                3.  PROVISIONAL OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING                                            
                      Claims 1-9 stand provisionally rejected for obviousness-type double                    
                patenting as being not patentably distinct from claims 32-39 of application                  
                10/371,404 (Answer 4).                                                                       
                      Appellant “reserves response on this matter until the time when claims                 
                are allowed in the copending application.  No terminal disclaimer has been                   
                filed at this time.”  (Reply Br. 2.)                                                         
                      Since Appellant has provided no basis on which to conclude that the                    
                provisional rejection is improper, we affirm it.                                             
                4.  OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING                                                        
                      Claims 1-9 stand rejected for obviousness-type double patenting as                     
                being not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent 6,649,340 (Answer                  
                4).  The Examiner reasons that the instant claims are not patentably distinct                
                from the patented claim “because the broad claimed library having                            
                undefined predetermined amino acid encompasses the library of the ‘340                       
                which similarly teaches the subset library wherein the predetermined amino                   
                acid is defined” (Answer 4).                                                                 



                                                     5                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013