Ex parte PERT et al. - Page 3




                   Appeal No. 1996-0160                                                                                                                             
                   Application 07/898,691                                                                                                                           

                   Rudinger, “Characteristics of the Amino Acids as Components of a Peptide Hormone                                                                 
                   Sequence,” Peptide Hormones, University Park Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 1-7 (1976).                                                               
                   Pert et al. (Pert), “Octapeptides Deduced from the Neuropeptide Receptor-Like Pattern of                                                         
                   Antigen T4 in Brain Potently Inhibit Human Immunodeficiency Virus Receptor Binding and                                                           
                   T-cell Infectivity,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 83, pp.                                                          
                   9254-58 (Dec. 1986).                                                                                                                             
                   Corbin et al. (Corbin), ”Intranasal Peptide T Treatment in TSP/HAM: Preliminary Results of                                                       
                   a Small Pilot Study,” 5th International Conference on Human Retrovirology,                                                                       
                   Kamamoto, Japan, May 11-13, 1992 (Abstract).                                                                                                     
                            The claims stand rejected as follows:3                                                                                                  
                            I.        Claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 17 and 19 through 22                                                          
                   and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  § 112, first paragraph, as being based on a                                                               
                   specification which fails to provide an enabling disclosure.                                                                                     
                            II.       Claims 1 through 5, 7, 10 through 12, 15 through 17 and 20 through 22 stand                                                   
                   rejected under 35 U.S.C.  § 112, first paragraph, because the specification, as originally                                                       
                   filed, does not provide support for (i) the “ester derivative in claims 2-3,” and (ii) the phrase                                                
                      7                                                            4                                                                            
                   “R  may be any amino acid,” set forth in claim 1.   Answer, p. 7.                                                                                

                            3The rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 17, 19 through 22                                                     
                   and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ruff, Pert, Buzy, Mayer, Bridge,                                                         
                   or Heseltine alone, or optionally in view of Wu or Rodgers-Johnson I and Rodgers-Johnson                                                         
                   II set forth on pp. 8-10 of the Answer (Paper No. 25), was withdrawn in the first                                                                
                   supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 29).  Accordingly, we have not addressed                                                               
                   this issue in our decision.                                                                                                                      
                            4At oral argument, counsel for the appellants was not aware that this rejection was                                                     
                   still pending in the application.  We have carefully reviewed the examiner’s Answer (Paper                                                       
                   No. 25) and supplemental Answers (Paper Nos. 29 and 34) ; however, we do not find any                                                            
                   indication that the rejection was withdrawn.                                                                                                     
                                                                                 3                                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007