Appeal No. 1999-0326
Application No. 07/997,715
2
requires ex vivo inhibition of IGF-I expression (e.g., “[I]f the inhibitor were administered in
vivo how would one have targeted it’s [sic] effect to the cell of interest?” Second
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, page 4). Under these circumstances, it is not
reasonable to shift the burden to appellant to substantiate the truth of statements in the
specification.
Having considered the record as a whole, we conclude that the examiner’s position
is not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 28 through 31 for
lack of enablement is reversed.
REVERSED
)
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
2Claims 28 through 31 require administration of a tumor cell having a reduced
intracellular level of IGF-I relative to the level of IGF-I normally expressed in the tumor cell.
Thus, the tumor cell is administered after “expression of the factor [is] inhibited . . . in vitro.”
Specification, page 12.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007