Appeal No. 1995-2723
Application 07/858,747
Kunkel, "Rapid and Efficient Site-Specific Mutagenesis Without Phenotypic Selection,"
Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. USA, Vol. 82, pages 488-492, 1985.
GROUND OF REJECTION2
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner relies upon Schwartz, Wisdom, Kunkel and Hatfield.
We affirm the rejection.
BACKGROUND
At page 1 of the specification, applicants describe the invention as relating to
methods of increasing the stability and/or utilization of mRNA produced by a gene by
mutating regulatory or inhibitory/instability sequences (INS) in the coding region of the
gene which prevent or reduce expression of the mRNA. The invention is also said to relate
to constructs, including expression vectors, containing genes mutated in accordance with
these methods and host cells containing these constructs. The methods are said to be
particularly useful for increasing the stability and/or utilization of a mRNA without changing
its protein coding capacity and are said to be useful for allowing or increasing the
2The examiner and appellants both present arguments relating to the objection to
the specification under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as lacking support or antecedent
basis in the application, as filed, for matter added by amendment to the specification. No
claim is rejected on this basis. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences reviews
adverse decisions of examiners in applications for patents (35 U.S.C. § 7(b)) on appeal
from applicants whose claims have been twice rejected (35 U.S.C. § 134). Since no claim
is rejected on this ground, review of this issue is not appropriate. Where the new matter is
confined to amendments to the specification, review of the examiner's requirement for
cancellation is by way of petition. See MPEP § 608.04(c).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007