Appeal No. 2001-1586 Page 3
Application No. 08/402,394
Markussen et al. (Markussen EPO) EPO 163,529 Dec. 4, 1985
Goeddel et al. (Goeddel) 2 EPO 0,05,5945 Jul. 14, 1982
A reference of record discussed by this merits panel is:
Thim et al. (Thim) EPO 0,195,691 Sep. 24, 1986
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 21 and 33 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The examiner relies
upon Markussen ‘212 or Markussen EPO, Godeddel, Grau ‘684 and Grau ’332 as
evidence of obviousness,
Claims 25, 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) with the examiner relying upon
Markussen ‘212 or Markussen EPO, Godeddel, Grau ‘684, Grau ‘332 and Mai as
evidence of obviousness,
Claims 22, 23, 40 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) with the examiner relying
upon Markussen ‘212 or Markussen EPO, Godeddel, Grau ‘684 and Grau ‘332 as
evidence of obviousness,
Claims 26, 27, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) with the examiner relying
upon Markussen ‘212 or Markussen EPO, Godeddel, Mai, Grau ‘684 and Grau ‘332 as
evidence of obviousness, and
Claims 39 and 42 under 35 U. S. C. § 103(a) with the examiner relying upon
Markussen ‘212 or Markussen EPO, Grau ‘684 and Grau ‘332 as evidence of
obviousness.
2 While this reference is not listed at page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer as being relied upon, it is in fact
used as evidence of obviousness in rejecting the claims in the Examiner’s Answer as it was in the final
rejection. We view the examiner’s failure to list this reference as an inadvertent oversight.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007