Appeal No. 1996-1748
Application 07/747,670
Rekosh et al. (Rekosh), “Coexpression of human immunodeficiency virus envelope proteins and
tat from a single simian virus 40 late replacement vector,” Proc. Natl. Acad., Sci, USA, Vol. 85,
pp. 334-38 (Jan. 1988).
Khillan et al. (Khillan), “Gene transactivation mediated by the TAT gene of human
immunodeficiency virus in transgenic mice,” Nucleic Acids Research, Vol. 16, No. 4,
pp. 1423-30 (1989).
Leonard et al. (Leonard), “Development of Disease and Virus Recovery in Transgenic Mice
Containing HIV Proviral DNA,” Science, Vol. 242, pp. 1665-70 (Dec. 1988).
Tremblay et al. (Tremblay), “Transgenic Mice Carrying the Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus ras
Fusion Gene: Distinct Effects in Various Tissues,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, Vol. 9, No. 2,
pp. 854-59 (Feb. 1989).
Bouchard et al. (Bouchard), “Stochastic Appearance of Mammary Tumors in Transgenic Mice
Carrying the MMTV/c-neu Oncogene,” Cell, Vol. 57, pp. 931-36 (June 1989).
Claims 7 through 9 and 17 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In a first
stated rejection, the examiner relies upon Fisher, Ratner, Leonard, Leder, Bouchard, Tremblay
and Southern as evidence of obviousness. In a second stated rejection, the examiner relies
upon Khillan, Rekosh, Fisher, Ratner, Leonard, Southern, Leder, Bouchard and Tremblay as
evidence of obviousness. We reverse.
DISCUSSION
The claims on appeal are directed to a specific recombinant transgene and a process for
preparing such a transgene. As seen from claim 7 on appeal, the claimed transgene must have
defined segments arranged in a specific manner.
We will assume without deciding that the multitude of references relied upon by the
examiner do describe the various components of the claimed transgene. However, what is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007