Appeal No. 2001-1651 Page 2
Application No. 09/238,972
16. An antisense oligonucleotide directed against CAT2 mRNA.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
MacLeod 5,312,733 May 17, 1994
Hoke et al. (Hoke) 5,585,479 Dec. 17, 1996
Gewirtz et al. (Gewirtz), “Facilitating oligonucleotide delivery: Helping antisense
deliver on its promise,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 93, pp. 3161-63 (1996)
Rojanasakul, “Antisense oligonucleotide therapeutics: drug delivery and
targeting,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, Vol. 18, pp. 115-31 (1996)
Branch, “A good antisense molecule is hard to find,” TIBS, Vol. 23, pp. 45-50
(1998)
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 3 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
the specification that fails to adequately describe the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as being based on an insufficient disclosure to support or enable the scope of
the claimed invention.
Claims 3, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by MacLeod.
We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and reverse the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
DISCUSSION
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH:
Written Description:
“In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as
originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007