Ex parte BODIAN et al. - Page 13




               Appeal No. 95-1364                                                                                                 
               Application No. 07/919,287                                                                                         


               by the abstracts.  The examiner has also not explained how the abstracts expressly describe a compound             
               which binds to a fusion protein required by claim 30.  No evidence showing or reasoning explaining how             
               the claimed subject matter is inherently described by the abstracts has been provided. We recognize that           
               the Bogdanova abstract refers to aryl and alkyl analogs of p-benzoquinone and hydroquinone halides.  We            
               find this teaching ambiguous and the examiner has not provided an explanation of how the aryl or alkyl             
               analogs meet the claim limitations.  Thus, neither Bogdanova and Grinev describe an embodiment within              
               the scope of the claimed subject matter.                                                                           
                      While we are in effect reversing the examiner’s rejection under § 102(b) based on the Grinev and            
               Bogdanova abstracts, we note that the Russian language publications which were abstracted appear to be             
               highly pertinent to the claimed subject matter. These publications are not of record in the application.  The      
               examiner has not indicated that the references are not available in the PTO or that attempts to obtain the         
               articles through inter-library loan were unsuccessful.  We therefore, vacate the rejection and remand the          
               application to the jurisdiction of the examiner for further prosecution and consideration of the Bogdanova         
               and Grinev articles.                                                                                               
                      The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-17 and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103                                     
                      The examiner has rejected these claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the combination             
               of Leach et al., Grinev, Bogdanova, Thiel, Korsakova, Lyubchanskaya, Ordzhonikidze and Lavie.  We                  
               vacate and remand this rejection also.                                                                             
                      The examiner’s answer relies on and discusses a Leach et al. reference. Examiner’s Answer, p.               
               8.  This reference, however, is not of record in the application, A copy of the reference is not present in        
               the application file. Nor is it listed on the PTO Forms 852 and 1449 of record. Thus, we are unable to             
               evaluate the teachings of the reference.  In addition, the rejection relies on the meager descriptions of          
               abstracts of foreign language publications.  These publications appear  highly relevant to the claimed subject     



                                                               13                                                                 





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007