Ex parte KLEID et al. - Page 3


                      Appeal No. 1999-1157                                                                                                                 
                      Application No. 08/482,321                                                                                                           



                      Backman et al. (Backman), “Construction of plasmids carrying the cI gene of                                                          
                      bacteriophace ?,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 73, No. 11, pp. 4174-4178                                                         
                      (1976)                                                                                                                               
                                                          GROUNDS OF REJECTION                                                                             
                               Claims 1, 9, 10 and 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                                     
                      unpatentable over Cohen in view of Bertrand and Goeddel.                                                                             
                               Claims 1, 9, 10 and 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                                     
                      unpatentable over Cohen in view of Miozzari (R), Miozzari (S) and Goeddel.                                                           
                               We reverse.                                                                                                                 
                                                                    DISCUSSION                                                                             
                               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration                                                
                      to the appellants’ specification and claims, and to the respective positions                                                         
                      articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  We make reference to the                                                            
                      examiner’s Answer2 for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejections.  We                                                    
                      further reference appellants’ Brief3 for the appellants’ arguments in favor of                                                       

                      patentability.                                                                                                                       










                                                                                                                                                           
                      2 Paper No. 53, mailed January 3, 1997.                                                                                              
                      3 Paper No. 52, received November 13, 1996.                                                                                          

                                                                            3                                                                              



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007