Ex Parte FORSTOVA et al - Page 10


              Appeal No. 1998-0667 Page 10                                                                         
              Application No. 081280,306                                                                           
              the exogenous material, i.e., DNA, into a host cell so that the DNA was taken up by the              
              cell and was biologically functional in the cell. The examiner agrees with appellants that           
              the results reported in Sandig indicate that the pseudocapsids formed of VP1 were                    
              unable to transfer the associated DNA into a host cell so that the DNA was biologically              
              functional. The examiner argues in the paragraph bridging pages 15-1 6 of the                        
              Examiner's Answer in responding to appellants' arguments:                                            
                    There are two possible explanations for the difference in the results                          
                    obtained by Sandig et al. and Appellants. One explanation is that                              
                    Appellants discovered how to use the particles of Sandig et al. to transfer                    
                    and express DNA in cells. But 'discovery of an unobvious property and                          
                    use does not overcome the statutory restraint of section 102 when the                          
                    claimed composition is known' (In re Spada, p. 1658). The second                               
                    possible explanation is that Appellants discovered a new method for                            
                    making pseudocapsids andlor associating DNA therewith, which                                   
                    somehow changes the physical properties of the composition. If this is                         
                    the case, the claim does not incorporate whatever process of manufacture                       
                    might distinguish the claimed composition from that disclosed by Sandig                        
                    et al.                                                                                         
                    This issue car1 be readily resolved by simple reference to Sandig and the present              
              specification. In reporting the results concerning ,the pseudocapsids consisting of VP1 ,            
              Sandig states that the results are "consistent with electron microscopy data showing                 
              only particles adsorbed to the cell surface." In other words, the pseudocapsids                      
              described in Sandig and relied upon by the exarrliner in support of this rejection had the           
              exogenous DNA adsorbed to the pseudocapsid surface and not contained therein. In                     
              contrast to this description of the particles of Sandig, the present specification states:           

                    By the exogenous rrlaterial being 'associated with' the pseudocapsid, we                       
                    mean that the material is protected thereby. For example, exogenous                            
                    DNA will be protected frorrl degradation by DNases such as DNasel, and                         
                    exogenous protein will be protected frorrl proteases. The exogenous                            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007