Interference No. 104,696 Paper 65
Khavari v. Tang Page 4
interest, to the skin of a mammal, in an effective amount to induce said systemic
immune response to said protein, whereby a systemic immune response to said
protein is induced in said mammal.
149. The method of claim 148, wherein said mammal is shaved at the site of the
topical administration.
[13] Khavari also provided portions of a Tang declaration [2005] that explains how portions of
the specification support vaccination without any pretreatment of the skin. It further
states by "shaving" the specification really means "clipping" or "trimming" and that
shaving is intended at least in part to facilitate attachment of a patch covering the vaccine.
[14] Tang argues (Paper 42) that claim 167 requires a non-invasive procedure, but that
Khavari's claim I does not exclude invasive procedures. Khavari's exclusion of chemical
or mechanical irritants strongly suggests a non-invasive procedure. Indeed, Tang's
examples of scarification and wounding (at 5) sound very much like mechanical irritation.
[15] Khavari claim I and Tang claim 167 each appear on the record of this interference to
require intact skin.
[16] Tang also argues (Paper 42) that the claims comprising the count are directed to different
inventions because Khavari claim I is directed to "an immunogen-encoding
polynucleotide in an amount ...sufficient for expression of the immunogen-encoding
polynucleotide and induction of an immune response", whereas Tang claim 167 requires
"a DNA vector that encodes a gene of interest and expresses a protein encoded by the
gene of interest ...in an effective amount to induce [a] protective systemic immune
response to said protein". According to Tang (Paper 42 at 2-3), "protective systemic
immune response" means "vaccination". No exhibit is cited for this fact.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007