Appeal No. 1995-2297
Application No. 07/797,493
over Reisner, Lubin or Kamel, and remand this application to the examiner for
reconsideration of claims 13 and 14, and to take appropriate action.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner’s Answer (Paper No.
17, mailed July 18, 1994) for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection. We
further reference appellants’ Brief (Paper No. 16, filed April 21, 1994) for the appellants’
arguments in favor of patentability.
I. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over any one of Pollard, Wade or
Fohlmeister taken with McCune.
A. Claims 9, 11 and 12 and drawn to a process for engrafting human
hematopoietic cells in an immunodeficient mouse comprising.
As appellants point out, each of Pollard, Wade or Fohlmeister teach “interrodentiary
transplants.” See, Brief, pages 12 and 13. To overcome the deficiencies in each of the
primary references the examiner applies McCune. According to the examiner, McCune
“demonstrated the engraftment and differentiation of human tissues in an immune-deficient
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007