Appeal No. 2001-1498 Page 5
Application No. 08/912,378
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 9-12 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gibbs.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)/103:
The examiner maintains his rejection of claim 13 over Gibbs utilizing the
same evidence set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claim 13,
however, ultimately depends from claim 9. Therefore, for the reasons set forth,
supra, we reverse the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Gibbs.
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims 1-4:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 7-8), Takle, “discloses methods
of delivery of microparticles bearing the porphyrin heme and external guide
sequences (EGS) into liver cells”; George, “discloses methods of delivery of
microparticles bearing the porphyrin heme and external guide sequences (EGS)
into liver cells”; and Sessler, “discloses delivery of any negatively charged
substances, including antisense oligonucleotides, with the porphyrin derivative
turcasin, into cells.” However, the examiner recognizes (Answer, page 8) that
“Takle, George and Sessler do not teach methods of delivery of compositions to
bacterial cells.” To make up for this deficiency, the examiner relies on Merchat
to teach “the delivery of porphyrin compounds to bacterial cells.” Id.
In response, appellants argue (Brief, page 9), that the external guide
sequences of Takle and George are not directly bound to the porphyrin as is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007