Ex parte DE VRIES et al. - Page 9




              Appeal No. 1996-3797                                                                                        
              Application No. 08/070,162                                                                                  


              presence of additional agents such as LPS of Rothman.   In this regard we note pages 13                     
              and 14 of the specification which states:                                                                   
                            "For use in Jijoye cells it is preferred that the Fc RII IL-4-                                
                                                                               E                                          
                            responsive element be associated with another promoter                                        
                            and/or enhancer element to form a hybrid promoter. . . . The                                  
                            use of a hybrid promoter is desirable when it increases the                                   
                            signal strength of the reporter gene used, while maintaining                                  
                            inducibility by human IL-4.                                                                   
                     While we could offer our own interpretation of the claim and reach a conclusion as                   
              to the obviousness or anticipation of the claim by this reference, we elect not to do so.  We               
                                          1                                                                               
              serve as a board of review  and leave to the examiner and appellants to interpret the                       
              claims of an application in the first instance.  However, upon return of the application to the             
              group, we would urge the examiner and appellants to at least consider whether claim 1 as                    
              properly interpreted, would be subject to rejection over Rothman, either alone or in                        
              combination with other prior art.  Should the examiner determine that the claims are                        
              unpatentable, the examiner should issue an appropriate communication explaining in                          
              detail the basis of such a rejection and provide appellants with an opportunity to respond.                 
                                                       Summary                                                            

                     To summarize, the examiner's rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are                      
              reversed.                                                                                                   


                     135 U.S.C. § 7(b)("[t]he [board] shall . . . review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications 
              for patents . . .").                                                                                        
                                                            9                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007