Interference 103,579
only that the subject matter Hofvander claims would not have been
prima facie obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined
teachings of Hergersberg and van der Leij, but that the subject
matter Visser claims would not have been prima facie obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the subject matter Hofvander’s
claims, the combined teachings of Hergersberg and van der Leij,
or a combination of Hofvander’s claims and the teachings of
Hergersberg and van der Leij, i.e., Hofvander’s claims designated
as corresponding to the count and Visser’s claims designated as
corresponding to the count are patentable over Hergersberg’s
teaching and there is in this case no interference-in-fact.
To the contrary, Hofvander argues that the following “facts”
establish a reasonable level of predictability for the particular
antisense technology to which the parties claims designated as
corresponding to the count relate:
The important thing about antisense technology
is . . . that the DNA fragment (segment) used is
homologous to the gene that is to be inhibited and
functions to inhibit the expression of that same gene.
Full length or not is of no importance.
(HB 27 (citing HB 6, Fact 6));
[A]s shown by Hofvander, both fragments of and the full
length GBSS gene will result in inhibition of amylose
formation and thus production of essentially amylose-free
amylopectin.
(HB 27-27, bridging para.);
By reference to the Interference Initial Memorandum,
it can be seen that the Examiner considered the use of
-101-
Page: Previous 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007