Ex parte ROSE et al. - Page 3




              Appeal No. 1995-4867                                                                                     
              Application 07/993,482                                                                                   


              Zabeau et al. (Zabeau), “Enhanced Expression Of Cro-$-Galactosidase Fusion Proteins                      
              Under The Control Of The P  Promoter Of Bacteriophase 8,” The EMBO Journal, Vol. 1,                      
                                           R                                                                           
              No. 10, pp. 1217-24 (1982).                                                                              
              Gorski et al. (Gorski), “The Stability Of Bacteriophase T4 Gene 32 mRNA: A 5' Leader                     
              Sequence That Can Stabilize mRNA Transcripts,” Cell, Vol. 43, pp. 461-69 (1985).                         
              Miyake et al. (Miyake), “Secretion Of Human Interferon-" Induced By Using Secretion                      
              Vectors Containing A Promoter And Signal Sequence Of Alkaline Phosphatase Gene Of                        
              Escherichia coli,” J. Biochem., Vol.97, pp. 1329-36 (1985).                                              
              Chang et al. (Chang)               EPO 0 196 864               Oct. 08, 1986                             
                     Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  As evidence of obviousness, the                  
              examiner relies upon Crowl, Maniatis, Zabeau, Gorski, Chang and Miyake.  We reverse.                     
                                                    DISCUSSION                                                         
              1.  Claim interpretation                                                                                 
                     “The name of the game is the claim.”  In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1367, 1369,                     
              47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).  In deciding patentability issues under                           
              35 U.S.C. § 103, the court observed in Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d                      
              1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987),                      
              “Analysis begins with a key legal question--what is the invention claimed?” since “[c]laim               
              interpretation . . . will normally control the remainder of the decisional process.                      
              Here, the language in claim 31 which needs to be interpreted is the statement that the                   
              expression cassette is “for the secretion of a disulfide bond-containing polypeptide in a                
              biologically active, mature form from an E. coli host cell into the culture medium.”  The                

                                                          3                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007