Appeal No. 1995-4525
Application No. 08/157,406
Claim 3 is representative:
3. A method of introducing a biological substance into
living target cells, the method comprising providing the
biologic substance in a liquid solution or suspension, and
dispersing this liquid into microdroplets of sufficient size
to penetrate the target cells without destroying the target
cells, and propelling these microdroplets toward the target
cells with sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate the target
cells.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Sanford et al. (Sanford) 5,036,006 Jul. 30, 1991
Miller, Jr. et al. (Miller) 5,141,131 Aug. 25, 1992
Curtis 5,152,458 Oct. 6, 1992
Mets 5,240,842Aug. 31, 1993
(filed Jun. 19, 1992)
The issues presented for review are: (1) whether the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 3 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Mets; (2) whether the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Miller; (3) whether the examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Mets, Sanford,
and Curtis; and (4) whether the examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Miller, Sanford, and Curtis.
On consideration of the record, we shall sustain
rejections (1) and (2). We also sustain rejection (3), to the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007