Appeal No. 2001-0562 Page 3
Application No. 08/460,478
Cohen-Haguenauer et al. (Cohen-Haguenauer), ”Gene therapy: Realities and
prospects, Pathologie Biologie, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 5-13 (1992)
Neve, “Adenovirus vectors enter the brain,” Trends in Neuroscience, Vol. 16, No.
7, pp. 252-253 (1993)
Friedmann, “Gene therapy for neurological disorders,” Trends in Genetics, Vol.
10, No. 6, pp. 210-214 (1994)
Orkin et al. (Orkin), “Report and Recommendations of the Panel to Assess the
NIH Investment in Research on Gene Therapy,” pp. 1-41 (NIH, 1995)
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 122 and 123 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on an insufficient disclosure to support or enable how
to make and/or use the claimed invention.
Claims 81, 82 and 85-1022 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on an insufficient disclosure to support or enable the
scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 81-100, 104-118, 122 and 123 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over ‘945 in view of Cohen-Haguenauer,
Braithwaite and Stratford-Perricaudet.
Claims 81, 90, 91, 104, 108 and 109 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over ‘945 in view of Cohen-Haguenauer,
Braithwaite and Stratford-Perricaudet and further in view of Ikenaka.
2 We note the examiner’s reference to claim 103 in his discussion of the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. However, as the examiner recognizes, in the Communication from
the Examiner (Paper No. 41, mailed July 29, 2000), claim 103 was cancelled. Accordingly, the
statement of the claims under rejection herein is correct.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007