Appeal No. 2003-1792
Application No. 09/434,598
Appellants argue, “there is a distinction between an antisense mechanism of
gene expression inhibition and an EGS mediated form of gene expression inhibition
...wherein an antisense RNA blocks via hybridization, and EGSs mediate enzymatic
cleavage of the target RNA.” Brief, page 13. Appellants, at the same time, admit that
“an antisense binding mechanism is required for the presently claimed method...” Id.
Therefore, we agree with the examiner that appellants' alleged distinction is without a
difference from the prior art, and that the examiner has provided a prima facie case of
obviousness which remains unrebutted by appellants.
Appellants allege that the “combination of Shaji and Milligan do not provide for
an enabling disclosure for identifying and producing a set of EGSs, that may be
modified by PNAs, when in combination with the target RNA, provide a sufficient and
specific substrate for RNAse P cleavage.” Brief, page 16.
The examiner responds, that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an
expectation of success since the art has taught that these modifications have been
used and provide for increased target affinity.” Answer, page 8. The examiner also
notes that the appellants' specification provides no working examples of PNA modified
EGS. Id.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007