Appeal No. 95-2041
Application 07/814,220
patented invention, when the prior art
does not contain or suggest that knowledge,
is to use the invention as a template for
its own reconstruction - an illogical and
inappropriate process by which to determine
patentability. . . . The invention must be
viewed not after the blueprint has been
drawn by the inventor, but as it would have
been perceived in the state of the art that
existed at the time the invention was made.
[citations omitted]
Thus, we hold that claims 17-20 define genes and hosts
which would not have been obvious in view of the prior art
cited by the examiner.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We vacate the rejection of claims 6, 11, and 32-39 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We vacate the rejection of claims 6, 11, 21, and 32-47
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007