Appeal No. 1996-2639
Application No. 08/176,320
The examiner relies on the following references of record:
Bruce Alberts et al. (Alberts), MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE CELL 98-103 (Garland
Publishing, Inc. New York, New York 1983) .
Louis E. Holland et al. (Holland), “Transcriptional and Genetic Analyses of the Herpes Simplex
Virus Type 1 Genome: Coordinates 0.29 to 0.45,” 49 Journal of Virology 3, 947-959 (March 1984).
D.J. McGeoch et al. (McGeoch), “The Complete DNA Sequence of the Long Unique Region
in the Genome of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1,” 69 Journal of General Virology 1531-1574
(1988).
Benjamin Lewin (Lewin), GENES 41-60 (3d ed., New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1987).
J. Sambrook et al. (Sambrook), MOLECULAR CLONING: A LABORATORY MANUAL 16.1-
16.31, F.1-F.11 (2nd ed., Cold Spring Harbor laboratory Press 1989).
Lubert Stryer (Stryer), BIOCHEMISTRY 71-82 (3d ed., New York, W. H. Freeman and
Company 1988).
ISSUES3
3According to the advisory action mailed March 28, 1995 (Paper No. 29), the response filed March 13, 1995
(Paper No. 28) overcame the final provisional rejection of claims 23, 58 and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 double patenting
over claims 71-75 of copending application no. 07/832,855.
The examiner withdrew (i) the final rejection of claims 67-69 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based
on a non-enabling disclosure and (ii) the final provisional rejection of claims 6-13, 22, 43 and 66-71 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 31, 32, 35-38 and 71-75 of copending
application no. 07/832,855 in the answer (page 4).
Moreover, in that the final rejections (1) of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite
and (2) of claims 23, 58 and 63 (now claims 58 and 63) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Holland are not
repeated in the answer, they are presumed to have been withdrawn. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App.
1957).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007