Appeal No. 2001-0562 Page 9
Application No. 08/460,478
system for potential therapeutic applications. The methods involve infecting … a
mammal with herpesvirus vectors….” The examiner recognizes (Answer, page
15) that ‘945 does not teach “replacing the herpesvirus vectors with adenovirual
vectors.”
To make up for this deficiency, the examiner relies on Cohen-
Haguenauer, Braithwaite and Stratford-Perricaudet. According to the examiner
(Answer, page 15) Cohen-Haguenauer teach “that either accessory cells or
neurons can be infected with retroviral, herpesvirus or adenoviral vectors
encoding products such as tyrosine hydroxylase.” The examiner finds (id.) that
Cohen-Haguenauer teach “that post-mitotic neurons can be infected with
herpesvirus or adenovirus vectors.” The examiner further finds (id.) that
“Braithwaite discloses that adenovirus can also infect ependymal cells of the
brain….” The examiner recognizes (Answer, page 16) that Stratford-Perricaudet
discuss “the use of replication deficient adenoviral vectors for in vivo gene
delivery [emphasis removed], such as in gene therapy.”
In view of these teachings, the examiner concludes (id.):
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to have exchanged the
adenoviral vector backbone of Stratford-Perricaudet et al. for
the herpes viral vector of Geller et al. in the method of Geller
et al. for transfer of desired gene products to cells of the
central nervious system with a reasonable expectation of
success because Cohen-Haguenauer disclosed that
adenoviral vectors could infect neurons in vivo while
Braithwaite disclosed that adenovirus could nfect glial cells
in vivo.”
In response, appellants argue (Brief, page 16) that the examiner “has not
provided a clear and convincing showing of how the references would have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007