Appeal No. 1995-2611
Application 07/808,452
cleaving of RNA encoding HIV proteins is benificial [sic] to the prevention of viral
replication." By this statement, we assume the examiner believes that the four references,
relied upon, teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed
modified viral peptide with the expectation that it would work in vivo to prevent viral
replication. However, the examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in the references in
support of this conclusion. We remind the examiner that a conclusion of obviousness must
be based upon facts, not generalities. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968); In re Freed, 425 F.2d 785,
788, 165 USPQ 570, 571 (CCPA 1970). Absent a more fact-based explanation from the
examiner as to why the four references relied upon would have rendered the subject matter
claimed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, we must reverse the rejection.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Joan Ellis )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007