Appeal No. 1996-2009
Application No. 07/982,193
appropriate terminal disclaimer upon indication of
allowable subject matter.1 Accordingly we affirm the
rejections.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. ' 103
Examiner has made four rejections under 35 U.S.C.
' 103 covering all the claims on appeal. In all four
statements of the rejections the same primary and
secondary references are cited: Lebkowski and Izban,
respectively. Only the tertiary references are different.
Consequently, the linch pin of all these rejections is
the art combination: Lebkowski in view of Izban.
The examiner has the initial burden of establishing
a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We have carefully reviewed examiner's position but, for
the following reasons, the PTO=s burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness has not been met.
As we interpret representative claim 1, the claimed
invention is directed to an expression vector comprising
1 "Appellant has indicated on this record that upon
indication of allowable subject matter, Appellant will
file the appropriate terminal disclaimer to overcome the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Accordingly, the only rejection maintained for
consideration on appeal is the rejection of Claims 1-3,
7-12 and 14-19 under
35 U.S.C. ' 103." Brief, p. 2.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007