Ex Parte AXEL et al - Page 5


                Appeal No.  2001-0562                                                     Page 5                   
                Application No.  08/460,478                                                                        
                       the claims are not enabled for any and all means of delivering the                          
                       adenovirus to CNS cells in vivo.  The standing rejection of [these]                         
                       claims … could be overcome by limiting [these] claims … such that                           
                       when the adenovirus is administered to central nervous system                               
                       cells in vivo, it is done so by stereotactical injection (as in claims 83                   
                       and 84).                                                                                    
                       To support this position, the examiner relies on Friedmann (Answer, page                    
                13) arguing that Friedmann teach:                                                                  
                       the CNS is not freely accessible through the general bloodstream                            
                       (see Friedmann, page 210, col. 1, para. 2), so it is unclear how one                        
                       can infect CNS cells by a systemic route, such as intravenous, oral,                        
                       anal, respiratory delivery, since one skilled in the art would not                          
                       expect the adenovirus to reach cells of the CNS, at least not in any                        
                       effective quantity.                                                                         
                While we note that appellants argue (Reply Brief, page 2) that neither Friedman,                   
                nor the examiner define the phrase “freely accessible,” in our review of                           
                Friedmann, at page 210, column 1, paragraph 2, we are unable to find the                           
                phrase “freely accessible.”  Instead, the first sentence of paragraph 2 on page                    
                210, column 1, Friedman states “[i]t is now evident that assessments of the                        
                application of human gene therapy should be extended to neurological                               
                disorders.”  In this same paragraph, Friedman states:                                              
                       Disorders of the CNS … were generally not prominent candidates                              
                       for gene therapy in most early discussions … the perceived                                  
                       physical inaccessibility of the CNS, and physiological barriers to the                      
                       introduction of gene transfer vectors through the blood-brain barrier                       
                       combined to make gene therapy seem less feasible in the CNS                                 
                       than in other organs.                                                                       
                In the third paragraph of page 210, column 1, Friedman states “[f]ortunately,                      
                these reservations regarding the feasibility of gene therapy for neurological                      
                disorders are now fading….”  Therefore, we agree with appellants’ argument                         
                (Reply Brief, page 3) that “there is no basis in the record to support the                         






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007