Appeal No. 2001-1498 Page 7
Application No. 08/912,378
claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over any
one of Takle, George or Sessler in view of Merchat.
Claims 4-8:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 10), Takle, George, and
Sessler, taken separately, and further in view of Merchat, fail to teach the various
limitations of the dependent claims. To make up for these deficiencies the
examiner relies on Ortigao, Yuan, Kobayashi and Winnacker. Ortigao, Yuan,
Kobayashi and Winnacker, however, fail to make up for the deficiency in the
combination of Takle, George, and Sessler, taken separately, and further in view
of Merchat, see supra. Therefore, for the reasons given above, we reverse the
rejection of claims 4-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over any one of Takle, George or Sessler in view of Merchat and
further in view of Ortigao, Yuan, Kobayashi and Winnacker.
Claims 15, 16 and 33:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 13), “Gibbs, teaches a
composition comprising a nucleic acid mixed with a macrocycle, which is a
porphyrin, that has a net positive charge, wherein the nucleic acid is ionically
bound to the macrocycle.” In addition, the examiner finds (id.), “Ortigao teaches
a composition comprising a nucleic acid covalently bound to a porphyrin in a 1:1
ratio that is efficiently transported into rat epithelial cells in culture. Ortigao
teaches that a synergism of oligonucleotide and porphyrin substituent in uptake
into cells.” The examiner, however, recognizes (id.), “[n]either Gibbs or Ortigao
teach an external guide sequence (EGS) that cleaves an RNA molecule that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007