Appeal No. 2003-1792
Application No. 09/434,598
extent that such a reliance is made, the examiner indicates on page 6 of the Answer,
that “applicant admits on page 10 of the Brief that the 12 EGS of Shaji [George] et al
could be identified by the method instantly claimed...”
While appellants have grouped claims 34 and 35 separately from claim 37, they
have not presented separate argument as to why claims 34 and 35 are patentable in
view of the cited art. The rejection of claim 37 under 37 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
Dependent claims 34 and 35 fall with claim 37.
Claim 36
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over George in
view of Milligan.
Milligan is relied on by the examiner for the disclosure of peptide nucleic acid
(PNA) modifications that provide for nuclease and target affinity which can be used in
antisense molecules and have taught the advantages of these modifications in
antisense technology. Answer, pages 4-5.
The examiner concludes (Answer, page 5)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
EGS molecules taught by Shaji [George] et al with the PNA modifications
taught by Milligan et al since Shaji et al have taught numerous
modifications for increasing target affinity and for providing nuclease
resistance and the importance of such characteristics. One of ordinary
skill, based on the teachings of Shaji et al in regard to the desirability to
modify EGS and their teachings of how and where such desirable
modifications can be made in such a molecule, would have expected
success in modifying EGS molecules with PNA since Milligan et al have
taught the benefits of such modifications in regard to stability and
increased target affinity.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007