Appeal No. 94-1573 Paper No. 24
Application No. 07/552,744 Page 4
Escherichia coli, 228 J. Biol. Chem. 325-338 (1957)
(Remy).
DISCUSSION
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
Appellants state that claims 2-4 and 6 stand or fall
together for purposes of the § 102(a) rejection over
Vasanthakumar I (Paper No. 14 (App. Br.) at 12). They do not
dispute that Vasanthakumar I teaches the complete nucleotide
sequence of P. falciparum HGPRT (Paper No. 14 at 13) or that
the P. falciparum HGPRT nucleotide sequence defined in claim 4
corresponds to the HGPRT sequence described in Vasanthakumar I
(Compare claim 4 with Vasanthakumar I at 8382). Instead, they
argue that Vasanthakumar I is not a proper reference against
their claims because it reports the work of the Appellants
(Paper No. 14 at 12-14). Counsel argues that co-applicant
Vasanthakumar was responsible for naming the authors and that
she named them in accordance with conventional protocol for
authorship of scientific papers. Therefore, counsel argues
that Davis was named because he was the technician most
responsible for conducting the testing that led to the
sequencing of the HGPRT and that Sullivan and Donahue were
named because they were the scientific directors of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007