Appeal No. 2000-0630
Application No. 07/780,717
Appellant relies upon the following additional reference:
Pähler et al. (Pähler), “Characterization and Crystallization of Core Streptavidin,” J. Biol.
Chem., Vol. 262, No. 29, pp. 13933-13937 (October 1987)
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
There is some confusion regarding the issues before us for consideration. The
Examiner’s Answer refers (improperly) to two previous office actions for the statement of
the rejection (paper no. 44, the final rejection; and paper no. 42, a non-final rejection).
In paper no. 42, claims 39 through 45, 47 through 54, 56 through 58 and 60 through
65 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hendrickson, Sano,
Kenten, Shoemaker, Tolman, Lowenadler and Meade; in addition, claims 39 through 45,
47 through 54, 56 through 58 and 60 through 65 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Rodwell, Hendrickson, Sano, Kenten, Shoemaker, Tolman,
Lowenadler and Meade.
In their response to paper no. 42, appellants submitted new claims 66 though 68
(paper no. 43).
In paper no. 44, the examiner maintained “[a]ll the rejections set forth in the last
office action.” In addition, new claims 66 and 67 were included in the rejection based on
the combined teachings of Hendrickson, Sano, Kenten, Shoemaker, Tolman, Lowenadler
and Meade. Finally, new claim 68 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hendrickson and Sano.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007