Ex parte JAYASENA et al. - Page 3




            Appeal No. 1995-2611                                                                              
            Application 07/808,452                                                                            



                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                 
                   This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1 through       
            7, all the claims in the application.                                                             
                   Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows:              
                   1.  A viral polypeptide having site-specific viral-RNA binding, where said                 
            polypeptide is modified to contain a moiety capable of cleaving an RNA backbone.                  
                   The references relied upon by the examiner are:                                            
            Corey et al. (Corey), "Generation of a hybrid sequence-specific single-stranded                   
            deoxyribonuclease," Science, Vol. 238, pp. 1401-03 (1987)                                         
            Malim et al. (Malim), "Functional dissection of the HIV-1 Rev trans-activator-derivation of a     
            trans-dominant repressor or Rev function," Cell, Vol. 58, pp. 205-14 (1989)                       
            Ebright et al. (Ebright), "Conversion of a helix-turn-helix motif sequence-specific DNA           
            binding protein into a site-specific DNA cleavage agent," Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci., Vol. 87,        
            pp. 2882-86 (1990)                                                                                
            Weeks et al. (Weeks), "Fragments of the HIV-1 Tat protein specifically bind Tar RNA,"             
            Science, Vol. 249, pp. 1281-85 (1990)                                                             

                   Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being             
            non-enabled.  The examiner does not rely upon any evidence in support of this rejection.          
            Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  As evidence of obviousness,             
            the examiner relies upon Weeks, Malim, Ebright, and Corey.  We reverse both rejections.           




                                                      3                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007