Appeal No. 1995-2374
Application 07/673,158
Claims 5, 11, and 16 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal as read as
follows:
5. A DNA segment consisting essentially of an isolated, non-chromosomal DNA
segment encoding Hsp60, a mitochondrial eucaryotic protein having a molecular weight
between 55,000 and 65,000 by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis under denaturing
conditions, wherein the Hsp60
(a) has at least 80% homology at the amino acid and nucleic acid level with the
sequences shown in Figure 1, and
(b) interacts with newly synthesized proteins to fold them into their biologically active
conformation.
11. A vector capable of autonomous replication in a cell, said vector containing an
operatively linked polynucleotide sequence segment that encodes Hsp60.
16. A transformed host cell containing a vector that autonomously replicates
therein, said vector containing an operatively linked polynucleotide sequence segment that
encodes Hsp60.
The examiner has not relied upon prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal.
Rather, claims 5 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite. Claims 5, 9 and 11 through 18 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph (enablement). We reverse. In addition, we raise an issue for the
examiner and appellants to consider upon return of the application.
DISCUSSION
1. Definiteness
As set forth on pages 2-3 of the Examiner's Answer, the examiner considers claims
5 to 9 to be indefinite through their use of the word “homology” since “this term is
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007