Appeal No. 1996-1093 Application No. 07/300,357 As discussed above the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed promoter/operator region. Without this region, the claimed plasmids and expression vectors can not be obtained. Therefore, we find the examiner has not met his burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Having concluded that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, we do not reach the rebuttal evidence discussed in appellants’ Brief (pages 12-14) and Reply Brief (pages 4-6). OTHER ISSUES The Communication from the Office mailed March 8, 1993 (Paper No. 21), in response to appellants’ petition, filed October 2, 1992 (Paper No. 20), states that the Amendments of April 10 (Paper No. 8), July 6 (Paper No. 13) and August 3, 1992 (Paper No. 16) were entered. Upon review of the application, it does not appear that these Papers were entered as stated in the March 8, 1993 (Paper No. 21) Communication. The examiner should determine the status of these amendments, and take the appropriate action. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007