Appeal No. 1995-2772
Application 08/001,063
II. Claims 44 through 49, 51, 52, 54, 68 through 70, 72, 76, 77, 79 and 80
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher, Gloeckler and
O’Regan.
III. Claims 53 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fisher, Gloeckler and O’Regan in view of Speck.
IV. Claims 50 and 71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fisher, Gloeckler and O’Regan in view of Singer.
V. Claims 57, 58 and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fisher, Gloeckler, O’Regan and Singer in view of Baker.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record which includes, inter alia, the
specification, the appellant's main Brief (Paper No. 20), Reply Brief, (Paper No. 26) and
second Reply Brief (Paper No. 30), the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 21) and
Supplemental Answer (Paper No. 29), as well as the Declaration of Mr. Campbell (Paper
No. 13), and we find ourselves in agreement with the appellants’ position with respect to
the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse Rejections
II through V.
As to Rejection I, we note the appellant's statement on p. 4 of the main Brief, that a
deposit will be made of pDIP18 plasmid, on or before the date of payment of the issue fee,
as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.809. The examiner acknowledges this statement, but for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007