Ex Parte HOLLIS et al - Page 2


                 Appeal No. 2003-0847                                                      Page 2                   
                 Application No. 08/744,685                                                                         

                       Fell et al. (Fell A)              5,204,244           Apr. 20, 1993                         
                       Reff et al. (Reff)                5,998,144           Dec. 07, 1999                         
                 Fell et al. (Fell B) “Homologous Recombination in Hybridoma Cells: Heavy Chain                     
                 Chimeric Antibody Produced by Gene Targeting,” Proc. Natl. Acad, Sci, USA                          
                 Vol. 86, pp. 8507-8511 (1989)                                                                      
                 Delente, “Glycosylation Revisited,” Trends in Biotechnolgy, Vol. 3, No. 9 (1985)                   
                 Yamawaki-Kataoka et al. (Yamawaki-Kataoka), “The Complete Nucleotide                               
                 Sequence of Mouse Immunoglobulin γ2a Gene and Evolution of Heavy Chain                             
                 Genes: Further Evidence for Intervening Sequence-Mediated Domain Transfer,”                        
                 Nucleic Acids Research Vol. 9, pp. 1365-1381 (1981)                                                
                 Morrison “Transfer and Expression of Immunoglobulin Genes,”                                        
                 Ann. Rev. Immunol, Vol. 2 pp. 239-256, (1984)                                                      
                 Paul, “Regulation of Immunoglobin Gene Expression,” Fundamental                                    
                 Immunology, 3rd ed., Raven Press, Ltd, pp. 351-370 (1993)                                          
                 Sambrook et al. (Sambrook), Molecular Cloning, A Laboratory Manual, 2nd                            
                 Edition, pp. 16.8-16.15 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, (1989)                                

                       Claims 19, 23 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                             
                 paragraph, as containing subject matter that was not described in the                              
                 specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant                 
                 art that the inventors, at the time of filing, had possession of the claimed                       
                 invention.  Claims 6, 15-17, 19, 21-27 and 29-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                    
                 § 112, first paragraph, as the disclosure as filed fails to enable one skilled in the              
                 art to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention.  Claims 6, 15-17,                  
                 19, 21-27 and 29-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,                        
                 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the                 
                 subject matter that appellant regards as the invention.  Finally, claims 6, 15-17,                 
                 19, 22, 23, 27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being rendered                       





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007