Appeal No. 95-2041
Application 07/814,220
that we have not decided the merits of the issues raised by
the examiner therein. If prosecution is continued on this
subject matter, and claims are presented which meet the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the
examiner should revisit these issues.
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Gourlie and Peters in view of Chakrabartty, Houghten and Scott
and further in view of any one of Williams, Ferrari, Shen,
Doel, Kempe or Willson.
We reverse this rejection. A prima facie case of
obviousness has not been presented by the Examiner.
The combined prior art teachings do not provide a
reasonable basis for increasing the number of 11 amino acid
sequence repeats in the antifreeze polypeptide of winter
flounder to establish that the claimed genes and transformed
hosts which produce such polypeptides would have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention. The reasoning presented in the rejection is
stated in the Examiner’s Answer, beginning on the last line of
page 13 and continuing through lines 1-14, of page 14, as:
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007