Appeal No. 2000-1780
Application No. 08/403,663
executed July 21, 1997, and the Declarations63 filed under 37 CFR § 1.131 of
Kamboj (executed August 7, 1997), Nutt (executed June 26, 1997) and Elliott
(executed June 26, 1997) relied on by appellants to rebut any such prima facie
case.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 28, 43-45, and 49-52 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heinemann in view of Puckett and Sun.
Other Matters:
The examiner and appellants should review claims 28 and 43 to determine if
claim 43 further limits claim 28. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph. See also
MPEP 706.03(k).
Summary:
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 28, 43-45, and 49-52 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heinemann in view of Puckett and Sun.
REVERSED
63 However, we compare the examiner’s statement (Answer, page 20) that “[t]he
transmission of confidential information does not show a reduction to practice of the
claimed isolated DNA,” with similar statements made in Appeal Nos.: 1999-1393,
1999-2118, 1999-2200, 2000-1779, and 2000-1780.
88
Page: Previous 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007