Ex Parte PETITTE et al - Page 4



             Appeal No. 1999-1223                                                               Page 4                
             Application No. 08/446,021                                                                               
             appellants in this appeal proceeding, we do not have the benefit of appellants' views in                 
             regard to the new evidence the examiner relies upon.  This is another reason why it is                   
             appropriate to consider the examiner's position sans the new evidence.                                   
                    As seen from the claims reproduced above, the subject matter on appeal                            
             involves altering the phenotype of a bird by introducing specified cells into an egg                     
             containing a bird during in ovo incubation.  The specified cells contain and must be                     
             capable of expressing at least one DNA molecule in an amount effective to cause a                        
             change in the phenotype of the bird.  As stated on page 7 of the Appeal Brief:                           
                    The Examiner acknowledges that Appellants have established the                                    
                    ability of such cells to migrate to the avian embryo and persist in the                           
                    hatched chick.  As stated in the Final Office Action of 4 September 1996                          
                    (at page 4): "the transformed cells would need to reach their target, which                       
                    the applicant has shown the instant method to achieve"; and "(t)he                                
                    problem is not cells reaching their targets".                                                     
             The examiner agrees stating in the paragraph bridging pages 9-10 of the Examiner's                       
             Answer:                                                                                                  
                    The examiner has even stated that the disclosed method (example 3 and                             
                    onward) shows retention of hematopoietic stem cells in hatchlings injected                        
                    at an embryonic stage with stem cells.  However, the mere retention of the                        
                    cells does not imbue a useful phenotypic change to the bird.  Such a                              
                    phenotype change does not need to be commercially successful or                                   
                    therapeutically effective for enablement.  However, the method must be                            
                    shown to be predictable that the change will benefit the art.  This is the                        
                    purpose of patents.  Inventions that are of no use are not patentable, they                       
                    are not enable [sic] as to how to use.  This is the status of the instant                         
                    invention.                                                                                        
                    We believe the examiner's position is aptly summarized at page 11 of the                          
             Examiner's Answer where she states "[t]hus as the specification fails to provide                         
             sufficient guidance as to DNA sequences, promoters, and routes of delivery and                           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007