Ex Parte ROLLINS et al - Page 10


                   Appeal No. 2001-0869                                                                 Page 10                       
                   Application No. 08/453,347                                                                                         

                   provide evidence that those practicing gene therapy techniques would not have                                      
                   considered the obstacles cited by the examiner to be a barrier to applying gene                                    
                   therapy in human patients, and therefore, that those obstacles would not have                                      
                   been considered to be a source of undue experimentation in this field.  There is                                   
                   no evidence in the record that the claimed gene therapy methods would have                                         
                   been likely to involve excessive experimentation when considered relative to                                       
                   other methods practiced in the field of gene therapy.                                                              
                           Thus, we conclude that the examiner has not shown that the amount of                                       
                   experimentation required to practice the instant claims would have been                                            
                   considered undue by those skilled in the art of gene therapy.  The rejection for                                   
                   nonenablement is reversed.                                                                                         
                                                    New Ground of Rejection                                                           
                           Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we make the following new                                       
                   ground of rejection:  claims 1-3 and 7-16 are rejected under the equitable                                         
                   doctrine of interference estoppel.                                                                                 
                           The doctrine of interference estoppel “bar[s] the assertion of claims for                                  
                   inventions that are patentably indistinct from those in an interference that the                                   
                   applicant had lost.”  In re Deckler, 977 F.2d 1449, 1452, 24 USPQ2d 1448, 1449                                     
                   (Fed. Cir. 1992).  See also 37 CFR § 1.658(c).3                                                                    

                                                                                                                                      
                   3 “A judgment in an interference settles all issues which (1) were raised and decided in the                       
                   interference, (2) could have been properly raised and decided in the interference by a motion                      
                   under § 1.633 (a) through (d) and (f) through (j) or § 1.634, and (3) could have been properly                     
                   raised and decided in an additional interference with a motion under § 1.633(e).  A losing party                   
                   who could have properly moved, but failed to move, under § 1.633 or 1.634, shall be estopped to                    
                   take ex parte or inter partes action in the Patent and Trademark Office after the interference                     
                   which is inconsistent with that party’s failure to properly move, except that a losing party shall not             





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007