Appeal No. 1995-4525
Application No. 08/157,406
extent that it applies to claims 1 through 3 and 5. We do
not, however, sustain rejection (3), to the extent that it
applies to claims 4, 6, and 7. We shall sustain rejection
(4), to the extent that it applies to claims 1 through 3. We
shall not, however, sustain rejection (4) to the extent that
it applies to claims 4 through 7.
DISCUSSION
We first consider the rejection of claims 1 through 3 and
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Mets. In addressing
this rejection in the Appeal Brief, pages 8 and 9, appellant
does not explain with a reasonable degree of specificity why
any claim or claims are believed to be separately patentable.
Accordingly, for the purposes of this appeal, we shall treat
claims 1, 2, and 5 as standing or falling together with
representative claim 3.
Appellant does not controvert the examiner's finding that
Mets discloses a method of introducing a biological substance
into living target cells by (1) providing the biological
substance in a liquid solution or suspension, (2) dispersing
this liquid into microdroplets of sufficient size to penetrate
the target cells without destroying the target cells, and (3)
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007