Appeal No. 1997-2510
Application No. 07/868,539
The rejection of claim 10 over Vickers, in view of Sakata, Metzler, Uhlmann and
Inouye; or Bielinska, in view of Sakata, Uhlmann and Inouye, further in view of
Mitsuya:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 11) Mitsuya “disclose …
combinations of multiple antiviral drugs and indicate enhancing the efficacy of
each drug in the combination … while reducing the adverse reactions to the
drugs….” Therefore, the examiner concludes (id.) “[i]t would … have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the DNA therapy with that of
other known antiviral drugs such as AZT.”
However, Mitsuya fails to make up for the deficiency in the combination of
Vickers in view of Sakata, Metzler, Uhlmann and Inouye; or Bielinska, in view of
Sakata, Uhlmann and Inouye. See supra.
Accordingly we reverse the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Vickers, in view of Sakata, Metzler, Uhlmann and Inouye; or
Bielinska, in view of Sakata, Uhlmann and Inouye, further in view of Mitsuya.
The rejection of claims 4 and 9 over Vickers, in view of Sakata, Metzler,
Uhlmann and Inouye; or Bielinska, in view of Sakata, Uhlmann and Inouye,
further in view of Summerton:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 12) “it would have been obvious
to use halo-purine and/or halo-uridine analogs such as disclosed by Summerton
et al. Summerton in the DNA because Summerton et al. disclose … that the
DNA is to inhibit and/or inactivate target polynucleotides such as disclosed in the
combined cited references….”
29
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007