Ex parte KAMBOJ et al.; Ex parte NUTT; Ex parte FOLDES et al. - Page 24


                  Appeal No.  1999-1393                                                                                        
                  Application No.  08/242,344                                                                                  
                          Claims 1, 3, 15, 16 and 18 of the ‘144 patent read as follows:                                       
                          1. An isolated polynucleotide that codes for the human EAA4 receptor that                            
                             has the amino acid sequence of amino acids 1-877 of SEQ ID NO:2.                                  
                          3. An isolated polynucleotide which encodes the human EAA4 receptor that                             
                             has an amino acid sequence of amino acids 1-877 of SEQ ID NO: 2 with                              
                             the exception that the amino acid at position 727 is aspartic acid,                               
                             wherein said human EAA4 receptor is the human EAA4b receptor.                                     
                          15. A cell that has been engineered genetically to produce a kainate-binding                         
                              human EAA4 receptor, said cell having incorporated expressibly therein                           
                              the polynucleotide as recited in claim 1.                                                        
                          16. The cell as defined in claim 15, which is a mammalian cell.                                      
                          18. The membrane preparation derived from the cell as defined in claim 15.                           
                          In addition, both Puckett and Sun relied upon the examiner in this appeal are                        
                  cited on the face of the patent as considered prior art.                                                     
                          While the examiner may issue a rejection if appropriate under these                                  
                  circumstances, a rejection using the rationale set forth above would appear to                               
                  require the signature of the Group Director.  Compare MPEP ' 2307.02 (7th ed.,                               

                  July 1998).  We note the Group Director did not sign the examiner’s action.                                  
                          Generally, appeals on these facts are remanded to provide the examiner an                            
                  opportunity to consider the issued patent and determine its effect, if any, on the                           
                  issues raised under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  However, after considering the facts in this                           
                  case we believe the better course of action is to move forward with a decision on                            
                  the merits of this appeal.                                                                                   
                          The initial burden of establishing reasons for unpatentability rests on the                          
                  examiner.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.                               



                                                              24                                                               



Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007